BASHIR AHMAD AND Others vs Mirza SULTAN BAIG AND Other
This matter arises from a civil dispute over the transfer of a residential property and open courtyard in Dharampura, Lahore, originally governed by settlement laws. The core legal question examined on leave to appeal was whether the High Court's judgment allowing a constitutional petition against the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was in conformity with the applicable law, particularly regarding the powers of settlement authorities after issuing a P.T.D. and the effect of delay. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise to divide the disputed property equally between the appellants and the respondent. The Supreme Court accepted the written compromise, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and allowed the appeal to the extent of the agreed half-share, directing the settlement authorities to give effect to the same. The principle laid down is that appellate courts may dispose of matters in terms of a lawful, amicable compromise arrived at between the parties to advance complete and full justice.
- Whether settlement authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Can an appellate court dispose of a property dispute based on a written compromise between the parties?
- Whether fraud and gross illegality in the transfer of settlement properties warrant suo motu revision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted in this case to examine whether the judgment of the High Court allowing the constitutional petition on 23-11-1976 was in conformity with the law applicable to the transfer of plot or property of the kind in dispute.
2. Khasra No. 412 measuring 1 kanal, 19 marlas, 159, sq. Ft. In Dharampura, Lahore, had three distinct portions. There were shops which were disposed of by auction and they are not the subject-matter of present dispute and stand altogether excluded. There are four residential quarters for which the appellants are the claimants. There is an open courtyard in front of these four residential quarters, a part of which was in occupation of Sultan Baig respondent who had also raised some construction on it. After excluding the shops the area of the disputed property comes to one kanal seven marlas and sixty-three square feet. At first the respondent was refused the transfer of the quarters and the open courtyard by the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner when he filed a C. H.
3. Form and was referred to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots). He got ultimately the transfer of the .Entire land and also obtained P. T. D. For the same on 10-9-1968. The application was then made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner alleging fraud and gross illegality in the transfer of the same property by another Deputy Settlement Commissioner which had been refused earlier by another Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner directed suo motu revision. The Settlement Commissioner allowed it and amended the P. T. O. So as to exclude four rooms and portion of the courtyard except five marlas over which the respondent had raised construction. The respondent then challenged such interference in the P. T. D. And the transfer order by con--stitutional petition which succeeded only on the ground that after the issuance of the P. T. D. The Settlement Authorities had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction in the matter and the appellants had delayed challenge to transfer order.
4. When the appeal came up for hearing and during the course of hear in the parties arrived at a settlement whereby the disputed portion one kanal seven marlas and sixty-three sq. Ft. Was agreed by them to be divided into two equal portions, one going to the appellants along-with the quarters, the other to the respondent. They have submitted a written compromise duly attested by their learned counsel. As under the orders of the settlement authorities as finally passed the property stands divided into two distinct portions, adjustments in the boundary would be in substantial advancement of complete and full justice to the parties. We, therefore, accept the compromise and resultantly accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal to the extent of half as agreed to between the parties. The settlement authorities shall give effect to the same: No order as to costs.