ABDUL WAHID KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal by departmental authorities to transfer additional land beyond three times the plinth area of a house already transferred to the petitioner. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a claimant is legally entitled under the applicable laws and notifications to the transfer of property area exceeding three times the plinth area. Holding that no such legal entitlement or concession exists, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of enabling legal provisions, notifications, press notes, or circulars supporting such a claim, an applicant cannot demand or be transferred property area in excess of the statutory or officially sanctioned limit of three times the plinth area.
- Is a claimant entitled to the transfer of property area in excess of three times the plinth area?
- Whether notifications, press notes, or circulars provide a concession for the transfer of additional property area beyond the plinth area limit?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details through which the litigation about the property in dispute passed and it will be sufficient for our purpose to mention that the petitioner has been transferred a house bearing No. P. 21-W-10 together with an area to the extent of three times the plinth area. The petitioner, however, claimed and desired that the rest of the area should also be transferred to him. Having failed in that respect at the departmental level, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition1being W. P. 192-R of 1974 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 18-3-1975.
2. The petition has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. Learned counsel could not cite before us any law whereunder he was, eligible to have any area in excess of three times the plinth area which has) already been transferred to him. The justification and legality of such a claim was examined by us in Sahehzada Syed Muhammad Matin Mirza v. "
Jahangir R. Rustomji and another PLD 1980 SC 64 wherein it was held with reference to the relevant notifications, Press notes, circular and other text that such a concession was not available.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.