BASHIR FATIMA Versus FAZALUNNISA

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑ ‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mst. Bashir Fatima and is directed against the judgment dated 8th June 1980 of the Lahore High Court Lahore passed in L.P.A. No.627 of 1966.

2. Briefly the facts are that the shop in dispute was originally transferred to Mst. Fazalunnisa respondent No.1 against her C.S. Form on the basis of possession on 29th January 1960. Another contestant for the same namely Syed Muhammad Taqi challenged that order in appeal and thereafter by way of revision petition, but these were dismissed respectively on 2nd April 1960 and 4th April 1961. However his second revision succeeded vide order dated 12th May 1962 of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner but no relief was granted to him for the shop in question was ordered to be taken away from the respondent and was directed to be sold by auction. Thereafter the respondent challenged that order by way of a writ petition which failed but she succeeded in her L.P.A. The present petitioner was neither in possession of the shop in question nor was he in picture at that stage, as when its transfer was cancelled from the name of the respondent, it was not allotted/ transferred to anyone else but was ordered to be placed in the auction pool.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the shop in question could not be transferred to her as a claimant displaced person on the basis of the possession of her minor son. It was further submitted that a review petition had been filed by Syed Muhammad Taqi to the aforesaid writ petition but it was kept pending due to the stay order issued in favour of the respondent and that the said review petition was pending even now. These arguments had already been raised before the Division Bench and have been properly attended to. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length but in our considered view the impugned judgment is unassailable, and no interference is called for as the respondent could claim possession of the disputed shop through her minor son being a displaced person who had submitted a C.S. Form and the said shop had been transferred to her on the basis of the said possession originally. In that view of the matter there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

4. M.I. /B‑50/S Petition dismissed.