MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD GULZAR

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. ‑The dispute between the , parties is over a two‑storeyed house No. U/907, situated in Purana Qilla in the District of Rawalpindi.

2. It appears that the petitioner had applied for transfer of house No. U/907 on a C. H. Form wherein he had stated that one Ghulam Muhammad was the other occupant of the house. The entire house was transferred to the petitioner on the lit of December. 1959, by an Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The said Ghulam Muhammad challenged the transfer by way of appeal and revision but failed.

3. Mst. Sakina Bibi, who is predecessor‑in‑interest of respondent Mohammad Gulzar and Mohammad Shabbir, had applied for transfer of two rouses in her possession and described the property as No. U/906. She, too, was transferred the property on the 1st of December. 1959, by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. A co‑occupant of house No. U/906 challenged this transfer but failed. It was found that the two rooms in possession of MW. Saklna Bihi that were transferred to her was actually property No. U/906‑A which was a part of house No. U/907.

4. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of transfer in favour of Mist. Sakina Bibi and challenged it before the Settlement Commissioner on a revision petition. The case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated the 16th of October, 1964, declared that the property transferred to Mot. Sakina was property No.U/906‑4. The petitioner filed an appeal and revision before the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner, respectively, but failed in both. The Settlement Commissioner found that the portion in possession, of Mst. Sakina Bibi was independent and separate; that it was a part of property No. U/9030 and that the petitioner had never been in possession of this portion nor bad he applied for its transfer.

5. In the face of these findings of fact the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and refused to interfere with the orders of the Settlement Authorities.

6. It has been contended before us that under section 2, subsection (4) first proviso of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958, normally the entire house has to be transferred without any division unless it has been divided by the competent Settlement Authority, anti consequently the entire house had been legally transferred by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to the petitioner on the 1st of December, 1959. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no substance in this contention.

7. Section 2(4), first proviso of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is in these terms :‑‑

8. "Provided that where any building or premise, root so declared consist of more than one residential unit, and such units are in the possession of several persons, them unless the Chief Settlement Commissioner orders otherwise, the whole of said building or premises shall be deemed to be a house."

9. It is, thus, evident that where a house consists of more than one residential unit and such units are in possession of several persons, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may divide the house. The facts show that the property in dispute was such a house and it was divided by the competent Settlement Authority.

10. It appears clear that on the 1st of December, 1959, Mst. Sakina Bibi had been in possession of the two rooms in house No. U/907 and that they had bean transferred to her on the same date. The mere fact that through some inadvertence instead of the correct number of the property, namely. No. U/907, No. U/906 had been mentioned, did not, in any way, affect the fact that she bad been transferred the portion which she had been in possession of and which she had applied for transfer Ail the Settlement Authorities have found that what was really transferred to Mst. Sakina Bibi was the two rooms in house No. U/907. This means that the Settlement Authorities bad divided the house misrepresentation two units and given the one in possession of the petitioner to Sakina Bibi to her. The division is not only legal but equitable.

11. It has next been contended that a Permanent Transfer Deed having already been issued to the petitioner on the 12th of October 1962. It could not be set aside unless it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation It is evident from the facts stated above that the petitioner in his application for transfer had deliberately suppressed the name of Mst. Sakina Bibi as occupant of the two rooms in the house in question. This was, indeed, a concealment of true facts and a misrepresentation. Furthermore from the facts stated above it appears clear that the house beating No. U/907 in whatever way described in the transfer orders in favour of the petitioner and Mst. Sakina Bibi really had reference to the portions in the house in the respective possession of the petitioner and Mst: Sakina Bibi. The findings of fact merely established that the property that had been actually transferred to the petitioner and for which the Permanent Transfer Deed had been issued on the 12th of October, 1962, really consisted of the portion of the house in the occupation of the petitioner minus the two rooms in, possession of Mst. Sakina Bibi.

12. There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

13. Petition dismissed.