NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and others
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property portions within a Sarai in Sargodha under settlement laws. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred specific ground-floor and first-floor rooms to the petitioner and respondent, respectively. Following an appeal, the petitioner obtained a vertical division of the property, cancelling the respondent's transfer. After protracted litigation, including a remand by the High Court, the Settlement Commissioner set aside the vertical division and restored the original transfer order, citing that the rooms in the respondent's occupation had been improperly transferred to the petitioner, who lacked access to the first floor. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court, which upheld the Settlement Commissioner's decision. The Supreme Court, in this petition for leave to appeal, rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the respondent's failure to file a transfer form, noting the petitioner's own admission of the respondent's N.C.H. Form filing. The Court further held that the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document (P.T.D.) did not preclude the settlement authorities from reopening the matter under the circumstances. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can settlement authorities reopen a transfer matter after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document?
- Does an admission in a memorandum of appeal regarding the filing of a transfer form preclude a party from later contesting that the form was not filed?
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The dispute relates to transfer of a portion of a large Sarai situate in Block No, 7, Sargodha. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 31-10-1960 transferred rooms/ verandahs 55, 56, 58 and 59 on the ground floor to the petitioner and rooms/verandahs 140, 141, 143 and 144 on the first floor to Faqir Muhammad respondent No,2. Not satisfied, the petitioner appealed and succeeded in getting a vertical division of the property, whereby he was transferred the portion of Faqir Muhammad also, whose transfer was cancelled. This was vide order dated 12- 12-1960. The respondent's revision having failed, he brought Writ Petition NO. 997/R of 1966, in the result of which the matter was remanded on 22-11-1973 for a fresh decision. The learned settlement Commissioner, on remand, held that "they were originally considered for the transfer of the two rooms each according to their possession but the D.S.C. Liberally gave them two more adjoining rooms each as they were not disputed by anybody". He held that the rooms in the occupation of the respondent had been improperly transferred to the petitioner who had no direct access to the first-floor. He, therefore, by his order dated 6-3-1974, set aside the vertical division and restored the original transfer made on 31-10-1960. The petitioner agitated the matter before the High Court by a writ petition but having failed now seeks leave to appeal.
2. It is contended, as has been done before the High Court, that the respondent had not filed any form. The contention was repelled by the High Court on the basis of his own admission in ground No, 4 of the memorandum of appeal to the effect that the respondent had filed an N.C.H. Form. The other contention that P.T.D. Already having issued in his favour the Settlement authorities could not re-open the matter has no force in the circumstance of the case. We find no merit in this petition and accordingly refuse leave to appeal.