Syed MOWAHED HUSSAIN vs Syed KARAM ALI SHAH
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner, an Assistant Land Reclamation Officer, occupied House No. 62 in Khanewal and sought its transfer by filing a C.H. Form in April 1960. The property, however, was categorized as 'C' and disposed of through a lottery system to the respondent. The petitioner challenged this disposal, arguing that he was in possession and had applied for transfer prior to the lottery, and that the Settlement Authorities failed to follow mandatory procedures under Settlement Scheme V, specifically regarding the publication of lists and the opportunity to file objections. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner raised substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the procedural compliance of the Settlement Department. Finding that these issues required deeper examination, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the disposal of the property violated the statutory scheme and the rights of the claimant.
- Whether a property categorized for disposal through lots can be transferred to a claimant who filed a C.H. Form prior to the lottery?
- Are Settlement Authorities required to publish lists of properties under Settlement Scheme V and provide a mandatory period for filing objections?
- Does the disposal of a property under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, require compliance with preceding paragraphs?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
MIAH BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J. Through this petition leave is sought against the judgment of the learned Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court whereby L. P. A. No. 801/1956 filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 14-3-1966 in Writ Petition No. 1576-R/1962.
2. The petitioner has raised quite substantial questions of law regard--ing the interpretation of the provisions of Displaced Persons (Com--pensation 8r Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 more particularly paragraph 4 ofthe Schedule and Earmarking Scheme V.
House No. 62 situate in Block 8, Khanewal, District Multan was re--served and allotted for official residence of Assistant Land Reclamation officer in the year 1951. The then L.R.O. Was a local and, therefore, he was not entitled to its transfer. The petitioner was transferred as Assistant Land Reclamation Officer, Khanewal in 1960 and occupied House 62, Block No. 8, Khanewal for his residence. He submitted the C.H. Form on 2-4-1960 for the transfer of the said house. The property was, how--ever, included by the Settlement Department in category C List for dis--posal through lots. The petitioner vide his application dated 5-4-1960 re--quested the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to consider his C.H. Form and also to exclude the house in question from the aforesaid List. This ap--plication was followed by another making similar request. Later on the petitioner came to know that the A. S. C. Has disposed of his ap--plication. He was, however, informed about the rejection of his apple--cation on 22-2-1961 on the ground that the property in question had already been disposed of through drawing lots. To respondent No. 1: The petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan but his appeal was not accepted. A revision was filed before the Settlement Commissioner by the petitioner which was accepted vide order dated 8-5-1961. Respondent then filed a writ petition which was accepted vide the impugned order. Petitioner filed L. P. A. Which was also dismissed vide order dated 9-12-1980.
3. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was in possession of the house on 1-4-1960 and filed C. H. Form on 2-4-1960 whereas the house in dispute was put to lots on 15-4-1960 in favour of respondent No 1; the petitioner having applied earlier before the actual draw, was entitled to transfer of this house but his C. H. Form was rejected without any information to him ; that the house could not be disposed of under para. 4 of the Scheme as the same was not transferable under any of the preceding paragraphs i. e. Paragraphs Nos: 1 to 3 of the Schedule that the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of the said house as a claimant under paragraph 1 of the Schedule; that the disposal of the house under para--graph 4 of the . Schedule was in violation of the provisions of the Dis--placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act ; that the house had already been deleted from the Earmaking List by order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which fact was reiterated by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 5-10-1960. The learned coun--sel further contended that the mandatory provision of Settlement Scheme V and various memoranda issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not been complied with by the D. S. C. That under paragraph 2 of Chapter 2 of Settlement Scheme V the Settlement Authorities were to make the List of the houses falling in categories A, B and C. The house dispute was placed in category C. Thereafter the List was to be published 'in the Gazette of the Government of West Pakistan and 15 days' time, from the publication of the List was to be given for raising objections under paragraph 9 of the Scheme. In the present case neither the List was publish--ed nor any time was given for filing objections.
4. The points raised by the learned counsel need consideration as they involve substantial questions of law. Leave is granted.- Security rupees two thousand and five Hundred only. To be heard on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if desired.