MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑ Muhammad Rashid appellant herein, claims that he is in possession of evacuee plot bearing Khasra No.3511 (min) measuring one Marla 100 sq. ft. situate in Pak Nagar Lahore since 1968. He applied to the Administrator (RP) for its transfer under .R.P. Scheme No.IX as he was in possession thereof before 1‑1‑1976 and raised permanent construction thereon. Simultaneously he moved application for condonation of delay in submission of the application form. Muhammad Hanif respondent No.3 auction purchaser of the adjacent plot bearing Khasra No.3512 also applied for the transfer of the plot in dispute and submitted application for condonation of .delay in filing belated form. The Deputy Administrator (R.P.), Centre‑IV, held enquiry and reported to the Administrator (R.P) that Muhammad Rashid appellant raised no construction over the plot. Muhammad Hanif built a house on it and let out a portion thereof to the appellant. On perusal of the report, the learned Administrator (R . P .) on 17‑2‑1982 rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the belated form. He however, accepted similar application filed by respondent No.3. It appears that .the Administrator (R.P) on the same day re‑called that order because learned counsel for the appellant entered appearance soon after the announcement of the order and prayed for providing him opportunity of hearing. On 3‑5‑1982 the learned Administrator (R.P) upheld his previous order and rejected application moved by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the belated R.P. Form.

2. Aggrieved by aforesaid order the appellant filed W.P. No.261‑R of 1982 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge in Chambers on 21‑6‑1982 declining to interfere in the discretion exercised by the functionary. Hence this appeal.

3. Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate contended that the appellant is in possession of two plots, one bearing Khasra No.3512 which was purchased by respondent No.3, the other bearing Khasra No.3511 which was constructed by him. The Administrator (R.P) in not condoning the delay acted arbitrarily and illegally. It was further contended that the evidence led by the appellant was ignored which otherwise established his possession over the plot in dispute. Reference was made to document Annexure 'D' with the Writ Petition.

4. Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate representing respondent No.3, on the other hand contended that the Deputy Administrator (R.P) inspected the spot in presence of the parties and found, as of fact, that the appellant was not in possession of the disputed plot. There was, therefore, no basis for condonation of delay in submission of R.P. Form. He further found that the appellant was tenant under the respondent No.3. The plot over which he laid claim had no independent entity. It was also submitted that the report made by the Deputy Administrator (R.P.) despite recommendatory in nature partakes character of independent order which being revisable under Para 31 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, the present Intra‑Court Appeal is not competent in view of the law laid down in Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another P L D 1984 SC 344.

5. Taking the objection, about the maintainability of the Intra‑Court Appeal, first the original order of the sale of plot bearing Khasra No.3512/3511 made on 19‑7‑1961 in favour of Muhammad Hanif respondent, emanated out of auction proceedings in which law applicable at that time provided right of appeal/revision to the aggrieved person, this Intra‑Court Appeal is hit by proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and thus not competent. Mst.1 Karim Bibi's case referred to above is fully applicable in the instant case.

Undoubtedly, the Deputy Administrator (R.P) visited the disputed site, in presence of the parties. He made factual enquiry and reported, that status of Muhammad Rashid was that of a tenant under Muhammad Hanif respondent. He raised no construction over the plot. Muhammad Hanif respondent built a house over the plot and let out a portion of it to the appellant. The document Annexure 'D' heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, is an interim order of the Deputy Administrator (R.P) wherein, the appellant was directed to establish his possession over the plot and construction if made by him. It does not prove that the plot in dispute was in his B possession in his own right or that he raised construction thereon. The Administrator (R.P) after taking into consideration the relevant evidence on the record and in his discretion declined to condone the delay in submission of belated R.P. Form. We do not find that the discretion exercised by the functionary in refusing to condone delay was in any manner fanciful or arbitrary.

In our view, the appellant has failed to make out a case warranting interference in the impugned orders. This appeal has not substance and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

H. B. T./M‑664/L Intra‑Court Appeal dismissed.