ABDUR REHMAN vs ALI BAKHSH AND Another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that had dismissed his challenge regarding the transfer of a shop. The property in question was auctioned in 1961 to a successful bidder, who later associated with the respondent. Following the bidder's failure to pay the balance, the respondent applied for the transfer of the property, supported by the bidder's affidavit of no objection. The property was subsequently transferred to the respondent, and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued. Thirteen years later, the petitioner challenged this transfer, alleging fraud. The Settlement Commissioner initially cancelled the P.T.D., but the High Court reversed this, holding that the Settlement Department had become functus officio once the P.T.D. was issued. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had remained silent for thirteen years and failed to object to the initial transfer. Finding that substantial justice had been served, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's decision that the Department lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter after the issuance of the P.T.D.
- Does the Settlement Department become functus officio once a Permanent Transfer Deed is issued?
- Can a party challenge a property transfer after a delay of thirteen years?
- Is the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed a bar to the subsequent reopening of settlement proceedings by the Department?
- Settlement Scheme No. VIII, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court dated 17-12-1975, dismissing his writ petition.
2. The facts forming the background of this petition is that Shop No. 348, situated in Kot Mithon Sharif. District Dera Ghazi Khan, was auctioned in 1961.
Muhammad Sharif was the successful bidder. He associated with A.I Bakhsh respondent No. 1 and deposited his compensation book for deduction of the 1/4th of the auction price whereupon a P. T.
O was issued in his favour. He, however, failed to pay the balance of the price. Two successive notices were issued to him but the same could not be served. The department, therefore, issued notice to A.I Bakhsh, respondent. He moved an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner praying that the P. T. O. Be amended and the property transferred to him. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of Muhammad Sharif stating therein that he had no objection to the transfer of the shop to A.I Bakhsh respondent. The property was consequently transferred to A.I Bakhsh and the P. T. D. Was also issued in his favour. After thirteen years of the said auction, Abdur Rehman, petitioner appeared on the scene and filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner alleging fraud and praying for cancellation of the P. T. D. Issued in favour of A.I Bakhsh, respondent which was accepted. He made an application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII for transfer of the shop in question which was accepted On this A.I Bakhsh filed a writ petition.
The High Court stayed further proceedings and ultimately accepted the writ petition on 17-12-1975, on the ground that the P. T. D. Having been issued in favour of A.I Bakhsh, the Settlement Department had become functus officio in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not object to the ground on which the writ petition had been accepted but submitted that there was nothing on the record to show that A.I Bakhsh respondent bad associated with the aforementioned Muhammad Sharif the auction-purchaser.
We notice that the petitioner slept over the matter for thirteen long years and did not object to the transfer in favour of Muhammad Sharif. We are of view that substantial justice has been done in this case. We do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for grant of Leave to Appeal. The petition is consequently dismissed.