MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Other
This matter arises from a dispute over an evacuee house situated in Multan, which had been in the continuous occupation of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Sondhey Khan, since prior to January 1, 1961. The core legal question concerns whether the property automatically transferred to the occupant under Settlement Scheme No. VII and whether subsequent abandonment affects such acquired title. The Supreme Court held that since Sondhey Khan was in possession of the house up to January 1, 1961, the property stood automatically transferred to him free of charge by virtue of paragraph (4) of Chapter 5 of Settlement Scheme No. VII, and any subsequent abandonment did not detract from his already acquired title, rendering it immune to interference by settlement authorities. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that statutory transfer of evacuee property to long-term occupants creates an indefeasible title unaffected by subsequent vacation.
- Does an evacuee property automatically transfer to an occupant in possession before the crucial date of January 1, 1961 under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Does the subsequent abandonment of a house by an occupant detract from a title already acquired under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Can settlement authorities interfere with a property title once it has automatically vested in an occupant under the relevant settlement scheme?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J-The dispute relates to a katcha evacuee house situate in village Qadirpur Ran, Tahsil and District Multan. It had been in the occupation of and allotted to Sondhey Khan, the predecessor-in --interest of respondents 1 to 5, since long before 1-I-1961. In fact his occupation had the basis for the rejection of an application moved against him by one Asghar Ali before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who bad by his order dated 1-10-1956 armed the allotment.
Some time after 1961, Sondhey Khan left for Bhakkar leaving the house in the occupation of Allah Ditta, etc., locals. The petitioner entered the scene on 1-6-1964 with an application seeking ejectment of those locals and for allotment of the house in his favour. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 4-3-1966 passed without notice to Sondhey Khan, allotted the house in favour of the petitioner. But the order was set aside on 12-5-1967 in Sondhey Khan's revision, by the Settlement Commissioner who found that be bad been in possession of the house from before the crucial date, I.e. 1-1-1961, and as such it stood transferred to him by virtue of para.
(4) of Chapter 5 of Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 444/R of 1967 and when the same was dismissed on 20-12-1973, he moved a review application, i.e. R. A. No. 22/74, but that application, too, was rejected by a detailed order dated 14- 1-1976. The view taken by the High Court was that the petitioner who had not been in occupation of the property on 1-1-1961, had no locus stand either under the old Scheme No. VII or the Revised one, to challenge the order of transfer of the property in favour of Sondhey Khan and that, even otherwise, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 4-3-1966 in favour of the petitioner without notice to Sondhey Khan was void. Not satisfied, the petitioner has sought through this petition leave to appeal.
2. The fact that Sondhey Khan had been in possession of the house upto 1-1-1961, not being controverted, the case of its transfer was governed by Scheme No. VII. By the aforesaid para. (4) of Chapter 5 of that Scheme, the property stood automatically transferred in favour of its occupant, i.e. Sondhey Khan, free of charge. That being so, an abandonment, if any, of the property by him subsequently, would not detract from his title already acquired in the property. That title was no longer open to interference by the Settlement authorities. There is thus no case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed.