Mistri ABDUL AZIZ vs Mistri MUHAMMAD YASIN AND Other
This petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of a plot originally allotted through a Provisional Transfer Order to the respondents, who are the sons of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in refusing to cancel the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued in favor of the second respondent based on a subsequent agreement of association, and whether the petitioner had established the approval of a prior agreement of association in his favor. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that his alleged agreement of association was duly filed and approved by any competent settlement authority, meaning no fraud was established and the first respondent was legally competent to enter into the subsequent agreement of association with the second respondent. Furthermore, once the P.T.D. was issued, it assumed finality regarding the property's transfer, placing it outside the compensation pool and precluding interference by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the executive side. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner can cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed on the executive side after the property has gone out of the compensation pool?
- Does an unapproved and unverified agreement of association confer enforceable rights regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws?
- Does a Permanent Transfer Deed assume finality precluding executive cancellation when no prior valid agreement of association is established by a rival claimant?
- Section 20(3), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM ACTG. C. J.-This petition relates to the transfer of plot No. 5/90, situate in Fateh Abad, a suburb of Faisalabad City. The respondents are the sons of the petitioner: This plot was transferred to them through a Provisional Transfer Order dated 28th of June, 1961. Its appears that the first respondent conveyed his rights in the plot to the peti--tioner by executing an agreement of association on 26th of April 1965, which was allegedly filed before the concerned settlement authority on 29th of April, 1965. Thereafter, the respondents entered into an agreement of association on 26th of April 1967, by which the first respondent conveyed his rights in the same plot to the second respondent and consequent thereto a P. T. D. Was issued in his favour. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 14th of July, 1967, purportedly under section 20 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili-- tation) Act, 1958, seeking for the cancellation of the P. T. D. In favour, of the second respondent. By letter dated 19th of February, 1972, the Chief Settlement Commissioner informed him that no order on the execu--tive side could be issued for the cancellation of the P. T. D. As it had gone out of the compensation pool. The petitioner, thereupon, challenged this order in the Lahore High Court through a Writ Petition which was dismissed on 30th of October, 1980.
2. One of the pleas, which goes to the root of the case, taken before the High Court, is that the agreement of association in his favour was approved; but the petitioner failed to establish that it was duly filed and approved by any settlement authority. This being the case, the question of fraud does not arise as the first respondent was free to enter into the second agreement of association for the transfer of his rights in favour of the second respondent; and as the P. T. D. Had been issued it assumed finality qua the transfer of the plot in his favour. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, justified in refusing to exercise his jurisdiction.
3. The petition has no substance and is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- INNO VATIVE TRADING COMPANY LTD vs APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others 2004 PTD 38
- M/S. Innovative Trading Company Limited, Rawalpindi vs Appellate 2004 P.C.T.L.R. 1081
- M/s. INNO VATIVE TRADING COMPANY LIMITED, RAWALPINDI vs APPELLATE 2004 PLJ Lahore 422