MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court, which had upheld the auction of houses in favour of the respondents and the subsequent issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.). The petitioners claimed they had filed N.C.H. Forms for the transfer of the houses in 1960, but their applications were ignored, and the properties were auctioned in 1961. The core legal question concerned the validity of challenging an auction and transfer after a lapse of sixteen years and the competence of the Settlement Department after the issuance of a P.T.D. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that the petitioners failed to produce valid proof of filing N.C.H. Forms, were guilty of gross negligence and indolence for remaining inactive for sixteen years, and that the Settlement Department had become functus officio after the issuance of the P.T.D. The key principle laid down is that unexplained, inordinate delay and gross negligence disentitle a party to equitable relief under constitutional jurisdiction, and the issuance of a P.T.D. finalizes the settlement process rendering the department functus officio.
- Can a party challenge a property auction after a delay of sixteen years?
- Does the Settlement Department become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- What is the effect of failing to produce verifiable proof of filing transfer forms?
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This order shall dispose of two petitions namely C. P. S. L. A. No, 577/78 and C. P. S. L. A. No, 578/78 as both of them are based on the same facts and were disposed of by the same judgment of the High Court.
2. The facts, briefly are that the petitioners were in possession of one house each in Noorpur T hal, District Sargodha and filed their N. C. H. Forms for their transfer on 13-5.1960. The houses in question were, however, auctioned away on 13-3-1961 in favour of one Nazar Muhammad predecessorin- interest of respondents (3 to 8). The auction-purchaser paid the price in 1968 and was issued the P.
T. D. On 22-8-1978. Sixteen years after the aforementioned auction the petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner saying that they had filed their N. C. H. Forms but the transfer price had not been demanded from them, nor bad any transfer order been issued in their favour.
They urged this point before the various Settlement officials had failed. They finally challenged the auction in question through Writ Petitions Nos. 67-R-78 and 68-R-78, respectively. The High Court, however dismissed the same on the grounds firstly, that when asked to produce the receipts showing that they had filed the N. C. H. Forms, produced some documents which bore no dates and had not been signed by any officer of the Settlement Department secondly that the petitioners had failed to agitate the matter for 16 long years and were as such, guilty of gross negligence and indolence and, thirdly that after issuance of the P. T. D. The Settlement Department had become functus officio.
3. After having heard the petitioner's counsel at length and considered the matter we find no defect in the impugned judgment. The petitioner are, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.