KISHAN LAL Versus SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATON COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
This civil petition arises from an order of the High Court at Karachi dismissing a writ petition concerning whether property bearing No. C. S. No. D/58-1658 Sonar Bazar, Hyderabad is evacuee property. The core legal question involves the determination of the property's status in light of a previous non-evacuee declaration given to the husband of the registered owner and its subsequent consistent treatment as evacuee property since 1953. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the registered female owner could not benefit from the non-evacuee declaration given solely to her husband without proof of benami ownership, and that the property's consistent treatment as evacuee property since 1953 precluded it from being treated as non-evacuee under section 3-A of Act XII of 1957. The key principle laid down is that property consistently treated as evacuee property by the authorities retains that status, and a non-evacuee declaration granted to a spouse does not automatically extend to the registered female owner in the absence of established benami status.
- Does a non-evacuee declaration granted in favor of a husband automatically enure to the benefit of his wife who is the registered owner of the property?
- Can property consistently treated as evacuee property since 1953 be classified as non-evacuee?
- Section 3-A, Act XII of 1957
MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This civil petition is from the order of the High Court at Karachi dated 28-6- 1974 dismissing Writ Petition No, 191 of 1972 by the petitioner herein.
The dispute concerns property bearing No, C. S. No, D/58-1658 Sonar Bazar, Hyderabad and the question raised is whether the same is evacuee property. The essential facts bearing on the question are that by means of a registered sale-deed executed in 1942, one Dr. Lekhraj, a private medical practitioner purchased the property in dispute, allegedly in the name of his wife Mst. Lachmi Bai as a Benamidar for himself and thereafter rented it to Dr. Alam Shah, a local since deceased and predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos, 3 to 7 herein. On 16-5-1950, on an application made in that behalf, Dr. Lekhraj was declared by the Custodian, a non-evacuee. Dr. Alam Shah continued in occupation of the house, but it appears, he initiated some proceedings to have the house declared evacuee property. Ultimately, on 21-7-1953, he succeeded in securing allotment order by the Rent Controller/A. R. C. In his favour, as if it was evacuee property. Later, he also appears to have filed L. H. Form for its transfer, his form was accepted and a P. T. 0. Was also issued in his favour. Dr. Lekhraj filed a revision against the transfer of the house in favour of Dr. Alam Shah. The revision was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by order dated 20-7-1961 and the P. T.
0. Issued in favour of Dr. Alam Shah was cancelled on the ground that the property was non- evacuee and therefore, was not transferable under the Schedule to Act XXVIII of 1958. Against the above order, a further revision before the Settlement Commissioner by Dr. Alam Shah was however, accepted by order dated 25-2-1971. The learned Settlement Commissioner took the view that the house has been treated by the Rehabilitation Authorities as evacuee property since 1953 despite the declaration with regard to the non-evacuee status of Dr. Lekhraj.
Aggrieved by the above order, Mst. Lachmi Bai and the petitioner herein filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 28-6-1974 by a learned Single Judge, who took the view that the fact that the house was allotted to Dr. Alam Shah in 1953 by the A. R. C.-cum-Rent Controller, clearly showed that it was treated as evacuee property and that the declaration as to the non-evacuee status of Dr. Lekhraj did not enure to the benefit of Mst. Lachmi Bai, who was owner of the house in dispute. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we are of the view that the case was rightly decided by the High Court. Barring the bald allegation that Mst. Lachmi Bai was a Benamidar for her husband Dr. Lekhraj, there is nothing to show that she was merely an ostensible owner of the house. That apart, the house, as found by the High Court and the learned Settlement Commissioner, has been consistently treated as evacuee property eversince 1953. That being so, it could not have been treated as non-evacuee, vide section 3-A of Act XII of 1957.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.