TAZA GUL vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter arises from a dispute over the transfer and subsequent auction of a evacuee property, House No. 1925, Peshawar City. The property was initially transferred to a claimant displaced person whose transfer was temporarily cancelled due to default in payment of instalments, leading to the property being placed on an auction list. Although the auction was held and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued to the appellant during the pendency of proceedings, the competent Settlement Commissioner later extended time for payment to the original transferee, a condition which the transferee fulfilled, thereby nullifying the intermediate auction proceedings. The appellant's constitutional petition challenging this outcome was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's conduct in obtaining confirmation of the auction and the P.T.D. in defiance of operative stay orders disentitled him to equitable relief under discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The Court further affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner possessed ample jurisdiction and discretion to extend time for payment of the property price to a displaced person.
- Whether an auction purchaser who obtains confirmation and a Permanent Transfer Deed in violation of operative stay orders can invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the court?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction and discretion to grant an extension of time to a claimant displaced person to clear the balance price of a transferred property?
- What is the effect of an order extending time for payment of property arrears on intermediate auction proceedings conducted during the pendency of the matter?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN,J.-The dispute in this case is about House No. 1925, in Mohallah Sakhira Ram, Peshawar City, which was transferred to Anis Ahmad, a claimant displaced person, respondent No. 4, herein,
2. He paid some part of the price but as lie failed to pay the remaining instalments, therefore, transfer from his name was cancelled by the Deputy Settlement on 16-3-1970, whereafter, the house was put in auction list for being disposed of by auction. The respondent applied for its deletion from auction list but his application was rejected on 9-5-1970.
3. He then filed an appeal against both the orders via. 16-3-1970 and 9-5-1970, which was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 12-ii-1970, and he was given time to clear the balance up to 27-8-1970.
4. As this period was not considered enough the respondent filed a revision for grant of more time, which was granted by the learned Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 6-1-1971, whereby time was extended up to 30-4-1971 within which the respondent cleared all the arrears.
5. However, it appear, that during the period when the aforesaid developments were taking place the auction of the property was held on 13-5-1970, which despite a stay order was confirmed on 15- 10-1970, and for which again despite a stay order the petitioner/appellant succeeded in obtaining a P. T. D. In his favour on 23-10-1970, on the basis of being as the highest bidder in the auction.
6. As these proceedings stood nullified due to the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 6-t-1971, mentioned in para. 4 above, therefore, the petitioner/appellant/auction purchaser filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 63/71 but without any success as the same was dismissed on 2-4-2974. The petitioner/appellant has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave, which was granted on 7-2-1975, to consider the effect of all the aforesaid developments and the rights if any of the petitioner/appellant with reference to certain legal aspects of the case as mentioned in the leave granting order.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length but it is not necessary to deal with the various legal pleas raised by him because in view of the fact that the petitioner/appellant managed to get the auction confirmed on 15-10-1970 and obtained P. T. D. On 23-10-1970, despite stay orders being legally operative at both these stages, his conduct was such due to which he should not be permitted to get any relief by invoking a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which he wants to enforce in the present appeal.
8. We further think that if the petitioner/appellant is allowed to do s then that will tantamount to putting premium on the aforesaid illegal] obtained confirmation and P. T. D. In his favour. Even otherwise, our view is that as the learned Settlement Commissioner had ample jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of granting time to a claimant displaced person to make payment of the balance of the price, therefore, this is not a fit case for interference with the exercise of that discretion on the peculiar facts and the circumstances herein before mentioned.
9. The result is that this appeal has no merit and is dismissed hereby.
10. It was agreed that our above order will cover Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No 16'7- P/79, consequently, the said petition is also dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL GHANI vs ABDUL GHAFOOR. and others 1993 MLD 1643