MUNIR AHMAD Versus FAROOQ AHMAD
This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the writ petition filed by the respondents against the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal dispute relates to the validity of competing deeds of association executed by the auction purchaser of a shop in respect of transfer and adjustment of bid money from compensation books under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that where an associate had exhausted his compensation book and could not meet the adjustment of the bid money, his association was rightly disallowed by the department, whereas the subsequent associate whose compensation book was duly utilized and in whose favour a Provisional Transfer Order was issued had accrued valid vested rights in the property. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in interfering with these accrued rights, consequently allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment, and restoring the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
- Whether an association deed can be accepted when a party has exhausted the entire deferred payment and compensation book?
- Can subsequent proceedings and orders deprive a party of valid vested rights already accrued in property?
- Did the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere with the accrued vested rights of an auction associate?
1. USMAN ALI SHAH, J .‑‑This appeal by leave has arisen frcm the judgment dated 18‑6‑1979 of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No.475‑R of 1971 of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the order dated 30‑1‑1971 and 3‑4‑1971 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner Multan and Bahawalpur Divisions was accepted by the impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Shop No.344‑45, situate in Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, was purchased through an auction from Settlement Department by Noor Ahmad respondent No.5. In order to make the payment of the transfer price, he executed a deed of association with Haji Karim Bakhsh (predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.l‑4) on 27‑4‑1962, whereby he agreed to associate him with the transfer to the extent of one‑half and pay the transfer price in equal share. This deed was not accepted by the Settlement Department on the ground that Haji Karim Bakhsh had already utilized the entire deferred payment and exhausted his compensation book. After cancellation of the said deed the respondent No.5 entered into association deed dated 16‑6‑1962, with his brother Munir Ahmad, appellant herein, which association was accepted by the department. Haji Karim. Bakhsh (predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.l‑4) moved an application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, against the rejection of the association deed dated 27‑4‑1962, who vide his order dated 28‑7‑1962 accepted his application, set aside the association deed dated 16‑6‑1962 and restored his earlier association deed dated 27‑4‑1962 as approved.
3. The appellant filed a review petition against this order which was dismissed and his subsequent revision petition was also dismissed. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.1192‑8164 in the Lahore High Court. The learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, vide his judgment dated 5‑12‑1968 accepted the writ petition and remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 30‑1‑1971 upheld the rejection of association deed, executed between respondent No.5 and Haji Karim Bakhsh in the following words:‑---
4. "The agreement of association between the respondents fails on the simple ground that respondent No.2 was only taken as an associate when he was a claimant. With the utilization of the entire compensation available to him, he no doubt retained the status of a claimant but had nothing in his compensation book to meet the adjustment of the bid money of the share given to him in the shop transferred to respondent No.1. Since the most essential prerequisite was lacking I think his association was disallowed correctly. I am also inclined to hold that the association between petitioner and respondent No.1, Noor Ahmad, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is allowed, accordingly."
5. ???????????
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 30‑1‑1970 of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondents Nos.l‑4 (heirs of Haji Karim Bakhsh) filed a Writ Petition No.475 of 1971 in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, accepted the Writ Petition, set aside the order dated 30‑1‑1970 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and directed that the deed of association dated 27‑4‑1962 entered into between Haji Karim Bakhsh (predecessor? in‑interest of respondents Nos.l‑4) and Noor Ahmad respondent No.5 shall be accepted and given effect to, vide his judgment dated 18‑6‑1979; hence this appeal by leave (of the Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. We observed that the appellant after rejection of the association deed between Haji Karim Bakhsh and Noor Ahmad, entered into association deed with his brother Noor Ahmad respondent No.5 and the transfer price from the compensation book of the appellant was adjusted and his name was shown in the title deed and P.T.O. was issued in his name. Thus the appellant has accrued vested rights in the property in dispute which intervened in the matter and subsequent proceedings in favour of Haji Karim Bakhsh would not deprive him of his valid rights. On the other hand Haji Karim Bakhsh (predecessor ‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.l‑4) after utilization of his entire compensation book to meet the adjustment of the bid money of the share given to him in the disputed shop and thus under the circumstances his association was correctly disallowed by the Settlement Department. While in case of the appellant and his brother, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner has rightly held that the association between the appellant and his brother Noor Ahmad respondent No.5 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Thus in our view the learned Single Judge of the High Court has failed to derive a correct conclusion from the circumstances and facts of the case because the High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter in issue to deny the appellant his already accrued vested rights while accepting the Writ Petition of the respondents Nos.l‑4.
8. The result is that we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order dated 30‑1‑1970 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, with costs.
9. M.1 /M‑452/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.