ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Another vs MUHAMMAD BUX AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a writ petition filed by the respondent regarding the transfer and resumption of a shop. Shop No. P-17, B-III was transferred to the respondent in 1967, but upon failure to make payment, a demand notice was issued, followed by the resumption of the shop on 30-6-1970. The respondent filed multiple applications seeking time to pay the transfer price, which were initially rejected by the authorities. Subsequently, the High Court accepted the respondent's writ petition. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was the applicability of paragraph 3-A of the Scheme to the respondent's application for payment of the balance price. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent's application was made within 90 days of the resumption order and before the auction was confirmed, paragraph 3-A was applicable with full force. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the decision of the Lahore High Court.
- Whether paragraph 3-A of the Scheme applies when an application for payment is made within 90 days of a resumption order?
- Does an auction that has not yet been confirmed render a property unavailable for transfer under the relevant Scheme?
- Can a petition for special leave to appeal be maintained against the acceptance of a writ petition by the High Court in property resumption matters?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Shop No. P-17, B-III was transferred to Muhammad Bux, respondent, in 1967 for Rs. 960. No payment having been made by him, a Notice of Demand was issued to him on 2-5- 70 which he received on 4-5-70 giving him thirty days to pay. He paid no heed to it. On 30-6-70 the shop was, therefore, resumed and a Notice of resumption was issued to hint the same day.
2. On 3-7-70 Muhammad Bux, respondent, filed an application praying that two months time, may be allowed to him to pay the transfer price. This application was rejected. The respondent again filed an applica--tion in which he submitted that he bad paid Rs. 500, and he may be allowed to pay the balance of Rs. 460, in three months. This was rejected. He presented another application asking for two months time, which met the same fate. On 24-7-70 he applied again submitting that he had paid the entire price and that the shop may, therefore, not be put to auction. This was rejected on the ground that the auction had already been held and confirmed.
3. He appealed to the Settlement Commissioner who - on 14-6-73 remanded the case but the remand order was set aside in a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. A Writ Petition No. 215/R of 1976 filed by the respondents was accepted by the High Court where for this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. It has been submitted before us that paragraph 3-A of- the Scheme was not applicable because the property had already been put to auction and was, therefore, not available. This submission ignores the fact that the first application made by the respondent was for permission to allow him to make the payment of the balance of the price on the same day, that is, when the property was put to auction. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the property was not available and had, in fact, been auctioned when he made the application. 1n case the auction had not yet been confirmed confirmed and was, therefore, not effective. The application having been made within 90 days of the resumption order, paragraph 3-A is applicable with full force and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Lahore High Court. Leave to Appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.