ATTA MUHAMMAD vs KHADIJA BEGUM AND 5 Other
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of a house in District Sheikhupura under the settlement laws. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation of a provisional transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner after the property had already been validly transferred to the respondent on her C. H. Form due to an erroneous earmarking and subsequent draw of lots. The Supreme Court held that since the property was already lawfully transferred to the respondent, it should not have been included in the earmarking list, and therefore the settlement authorities and the High Court rightly corrected the mistake by cancelling the subsequent allotment in favour of the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that inadvertent inclusion and subsequent lot-drawing of a previously transferred property creates no indefeasible right, and the settlement authorities retain the power to correct such administrative errors.
- Can a property already transferred to a claimant on a C. H. Form be validly included in an earmarking list and allotted to another person?
- Do settlement authorities have the power to cancel a lot drawn by mistake in respect of a property already transferred?
- Will the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with an order of the settlement authorities correcting a bona fide mistake in property allotment?
1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The dispute in this case is with respect to House No. B-I-S-3-8, Mandi Chuharkana, District Sheikhupura.
2. On 10-10-54, this house was transferred to Khadija Begum on her C. H. Form. Later, by mistake, this house was included in the earmarking list and thereafter it was drawn by lots in the name of the petitioner Atta Muhammad on 25-5-60 and a P. T. O. Was issued in his favour on 31-10-60. When the said fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner, he, while canceling the lot drawn in favour of Atta Muhammad, directed that the latter should be allowed "choice to earmark some other house in the list of auction" and his order was upheld in appeal and on revision. The High Court also declined to interfere with the order of the Settlement authorities in its writ jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel has found it difficult to challenge the legality and propriety of the order of the Settlement authorities. It will suffice to say that as the property had already been transferred to Mst.
4. Khadija Begum the same should not have been put in the earmarking list. The High Court has, therefore, rightly declined to interfere with the order of the Settlement Department.
5. This petition is accordingly 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.