RIAZUL HAQUE Versus ABDUL SAMAD

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. --The contention is that the learned Judge in the High Court fell into an error in considering that the) Deputy Settlement Commissioner had to appoint legal heirs of the transferee and that he (Deputy Settlement Commissioner) could not hold that the property in question devolved solely in favour of one of the heirs, namely Riaz-ul-Haque (the petitioner herein) under a will. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the position was that Riaz-ul-Haque aforesaid was not claiming the property under a will but was claiming it under an "Agreement of Association" entered into by the transferee (the father of the parties), whereunder he undertook to transfer the property in his favour alone, on the latter paying the transfer price.

2. There is some force in this contention because the document described by the High Court as a "Will" indeed appears to be an "agreement of Association". Such agreements were permissible under the Scheme framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & B Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, permitting a transferee to surrender the property (transferred in his favour) to the person who undertook to pay its transfer price. In this case, the petitioner undertook to pay the transfer price.

3. Leave granted.

4. Security Rs.5,000.

5. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.

6. The operation of the impugned order of the High Court shall remain suspended meanwhile.

7. M.I. /R-39/8 Leave granted.