ZAHOOR AHMAD Versus DADU KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court concerning the legality of the transfer of an open plot. The petitioner contended that the plot was validly transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 4 on June 15, 1960, under para 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with Settlement Scheme VI, and therefore was not available for subsequent transfer by auction in 1961. The core legal question is whether the earlier transfer of the plot to a local was legal and whether it could be ignored as an illegal transfer to uphold the subsequent auction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the legality of the initial transfer require further consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
- Whether an open plot could be lawfully transferred to a local under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a prior transfer of a property be ignored as illegal to validate a subsequent auction?
- Paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. ‑The learned counsel for the petitioner Ch. Khalil. ur‑Rehman, has, inter alia, submitted that the plot in question was transferred to Saroon Khan (deceased) predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 to 4 on 15,.6‑;960 and that the transfer in favour of the said Saroon Khan was perfectly legal inasmuch asp even a local could obtain the transfer of an open plot. The view of the learned Judge in the High Court that the same could not be transferred to him because he was not a claimant was expressed by overlooking the provisions of para. 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with Settlement Scheme VI. Hence, the said plot having been validly transferred in June; 1960 was not available for transfer by auction in 1961 to respondents 5 and 6.
2. The contention that the learned. Judge in the High Court erred in la in upholding the auction in favour of respondents 5 and 4 on the assumption that the earlier transfer of the plot to Saroon Khan on 15-6‑1960 being an illegal transfer did not confer any right, on him and could .therefore ignored, requires further consideration.
3. Leave granted.
4. Security in sum of Rs. 1,000
5. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add additional documents, if any and. put up for hearing very early as this matter has been pending in this Court since 1976.
6. Leave granted.