KAMAL DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.S
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal challenging orders relating to the transfer of a shop under settlement laws. The transfer was originally finalized and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P. T. D.) was issued in 1968. Subsequently, in 1974, the Settlement Commissioner annulled the transfer in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction without notice to the P. T. D. holders, prompting writ petitions that were dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities retain the jurisdiction to re-open a matter and cancel a transfer after a P. T. D. has been issued, particularly in view of conflicting precedents regarding the effect of the deletion of rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court noted a clear conflict in its past judgments as to whether deletion of rule 7 foreclosed the jurisdiction to uncover fraud and illegalities, and consequently granted leave to appeal in both petitions for reconsideration of the point involved. The key principle centers on the finality of a P. T. D. and the extent of the functus officio status of settlement authorities.
- Whether the Settlement authorities could, after the P. T. D. had issued, re-open the matter?
- Does the deletion of rule 7 of the Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961 foreclose the jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities to uncover cases of fraud and illegalities?
- Do Settlement authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Rule 4, Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules 1961
- Rule 6, Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules 1961
- Rule 7, Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules 1961
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The transfer of the shop in question had been ordered in 1959, and after the litigation that arose from the transfer was finally settled by the Revisional Authority in 1962, a P. T. D.
Was issued in 1968. However, on 4-2-1974, the transfer was annulled by the Settlement Commissioner in the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was directed to dispose of the property under the law. It is to be noted that the P. T.
D. Holders had no notice of the suo motu revision. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as directed by the Settlement Commissioner, made a fresh order of transfer on 16-3-1974 in favour of another person. Kamal Din, a vendee from Majid Asghar, one of the P. T. D. Holders, challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 929/11 of 1974, but the same was dismissed on 30-8-1976. He thereupon moved Civil Petition No. 1020 of 1976 for leave to appeal.
2. The other petition for grant of leave, i. e. No. 1028 of 1976, has been filed by Muhammad Siddique and others who were among the applicants for transfer before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but had remained unsuccessful. Their writ petition bearing No. 1077/11 of 1974 had also failed.
3. The question that arises, inter alia, is whether the Settlement authorities could, after the P. T. D.
Had issued, re-open the matter. In Anwar Hussain v. Sarfraz Ahmad PLD1971SC669, this Court had held that after the issue of P. T. D. The Settlement authorities became functus officio and their power to deal with the property was barred by rule 4 of the Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961, except in the case of misrepresenta--tion or fraud as covered by rules 6 and 7.
These rules 6 and 7 were deleted on 2-3-1964 and 27-12-1964, respectively and it was held in Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner 1973SCMR624 that the Settlement authorities were left with no power to deal with the property in respect of which P. T. D. Had issued, after the deletion of the said rules 6 and 7. Similar view had been expressed in Murid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousuf Ali 1974 SCMR 8 and Faizul Haque Khan v. Abdul Hamid 1976 SCMR 429. A different view had, however, been taken in Ahmad Shah v. Fazal Rahim 1975 SCMR 268 and Muhammad Anwar v. M. A. Wasti 1975 SCMR 372, in the same report at page 372, and it had been held that the deletion of rule 7 did not foreclose the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities to uncover cases of fraud and illegalities.
4. The point involved, therefore, requires to be re-considered. We accordingly grant leave in both the petitions. Security Rs. 2,000, each.
Cited by 1 case
- National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) through Chairman vs Aijaz Ahmed and others 2022 SCMR 611, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 730