Pakistan Case Law
1988 SCMR 751

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus NOOR BAI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1988 SCMR 751
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.387‑K of 1986
Date1988-01-19
Judge(s)Abdul Kadir Sheikh and Ali Hussain Qazilbash
Authored byAli Hussain Qazilbash
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J. ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 24‑7‑1986, whereby the constitutional petition filed by Hajiani Noor Bai and others was accepted and the transfer of the tenements made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. .

2. The disputed property is a double‑storeyed building bearing NO.R.S.2/44,‑situate in Ramaswami, Karachi. It has fourteen tenements on the ground floor and two or, the first floor. A11 these tenements are in possession of various persons. Certain of these tenements were transferred by‑ the Settlement Department to their occupants and the claim of certain occupants of the tenements was refused by the Settlement Department on the ground that the whole property was an Evacuee Trust property. The petitioner, who is a claimant displaced person and in occupation of a tenement, applied for the transfer of as many as eight tenements in his favour. These tenements had not been earlier applied for by anybody. It seems that the tenements applied for by the petitioner were transferred to him by negotiation by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 3‑4‑1962. P.T.O. was issued in his favour on 14‑4‑1962 and he got the P.T.D. of the above tenements on 20‑1‑1963. Thereafter, the petitioner wanted to demolish the tenements and to re‑construct a new building and accordingly submitted plans to the Karachi Municipal Corporation for sanction in the beginning of 1975. As soon as the occupants of the tenements came to know about. the transfer of the same in favour of the petitioner,. they moved the High Court through Constitutional Petition No.S‑424 of 1975.

In the meantime, the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Karachi, also filed a reference under sections 8 and 10(2) of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975) for a declaration that the property in dispute was a trust property and prayed for cancellation of the transfer from the name of the petitioner. It was during the pendency of the constitutional petition,, viz., C.P. No.S‑424 of 1975, that the case was taken up by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, who, after hearing the case on the reference made to him by the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, adjourned it sine die, pending the decision of the constitutional petition filed by the respondents. This order was again challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Federal Government which is still sub judice. Finally the Constitutional Petition No.S‑424 of 1975, filed by the respondents, came up for hearing before the High Court which was allowed through the impugned judgment.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record and we are of the view that this case has no merits in that in the first instance admittedly the petitioner was in possession of only ore tenement and under the law he was not entitled to the transfer of more than one tenement. Even otherwise, the transfer of more than one tenement on the basis of negotiation is not warranted by law and, therefore, the transfer of the above tenements in the name of the petitioner was ab initio illegal. Secondly, the whole of the building was declared to be Evacuee Trust property as far back as 1963 through two notifications of 15‑7‑1963 and 9‑9‑1963. Since the property was Evacuee Trust Property, the Settlement Department had no jurisdiction to deal with or to dispose of the said building under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958). We, therefore, find that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are unexceptionable.

4. Thus, finding no force in the petition, the same is dismissed.

M.Y.H./M‑373/S Petition dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.