HAFIZ ALI Versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY

ORDER

1. This is a Writ Petition against the Judgment dated 22‑3‑1987 passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Sind, Karachi m Revision Application No. 72 of 1974, setting aside the order of the Additional Custodian dated 29th March, 1974.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner allegedly purchased agricultural land, bearing Survey No. 303/2, measuring one Acre and nine Ghuntas situated in Dch Dalipota, Taluka Naushchro Feroze. The petitioner filed an application for confirmation of the above sale. The above application was dismissed as per impugned order dated 8 2‑1960, whereas as per learned counsel for the petitioner on 27th February, 1960. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed an appeal against the above order on 14‑10 1969. It may be mentioned that prior to the filing of the above appeal on 8‑6‑1960 the suit land was acquired under Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act), 1958. The learned Additional Custodian by the above order granted the confirmation against which Respondent No. 4 filed aforesaid Revision Application No. 72 of 1974, which has been allowed by the Custodian by the impugned order dated 22‑3‑1987.

3. I have heard the learned :counsel for the petitioner. The admitted position is that the petitioner's application for confirmation was dismissed on 27‑2‑1960 as contended by the petitioner's learned counsel (and not on 8‑2‑1960 as mentioned in the order). It is also an admitted position that on 8‑6‑1960 the suit land was acquired by the Central Government under the aforesaid Act and, therefore, had ceased to be an evacuee property. There is also no dispute that the petitioner filed appeal against the above dismissal order on 14‑10‑1969 after the expiry of nine years when the above property was no longer' available as an evacuee property. The findings of the learned Custodian on the above questions of fact, are unassailable. In this view of the matter the order is in consonance with law and does not call for an interference by this Court in Constitutional Petition.

4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

5. M.Y.H./A‑341/K.

6. Petition dismissed