Mst. HALEEMAN vs REHMAT ALI And Other
The matter concerns a dispute over agricultural land originally allotted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest in 1954 and transferred to him in 1964. Following his death, the respondents inherited the property and filed a suit for possession against the petitioners, who were alleged trespassers. During the pendency of this suit, the property was purportedly transferred to the petitioners under Scheme No. VII without formal resumption proceedings. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, a decision upheld by the appellate courts. The core legal question was whether the civil court lost jurisdiction once the property was transferred to the petitioners under Scheme No. VII, necessitating the respondents to approach settlement authorities instead. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings. The holding establishes that where property has already been validly transferred to a predecessor-in-interest, it ceases to be available for settlement; consequently, a subsequent transfer under a settlement scheme is ineffective, and the civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate possession against those claiming under such an invalid transfer.
- Does a civil court lose jurisdiction over a property dispute if the property is transferred under a settlement scheme during the pendency of a suit?
- Can property already transferred to a predecessor-in-interest be validly settled in favor of another party under Scheme No. VII?
- Is a transfer of property under a settlement scheme valid if made without proper resumption proceedings?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The property in question which had been temporarily allotted as agricultural land to Elahi Bakhsh, father of the present respondents, in 1954, had been transferred to him in December, 1964. After his death the respondents were substituted as heirs vide mutation of inheritance, dated 31-7-1969. The same years they instituted a suit for, possession against the petitioners on the ground that they were trespassers. During the pendency of the suit and without proper proceeding for resumption, the property was transferred, on 3-4-1974, in favour of the petitioners under Scheme No: VII. Nevertheless, the trial Court, ignoring this transfer, proceeded with the suit which it decreed in favour of the respondents on 10-7-1975. The petitioners' first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 5-2-1980 and their second appeal by the High Court by the impugned order, dated 29-9-1983.
2. It is submitted that after the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners under Scheme No. VII, the Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction and that the proper course for the respondents was to have moved the Settlement authorities who alone had the power to annul the transfer made in favour of the petitioners. This point had been raised before the High Court but repelled on the view that as the property had already stood transferred to the respondents-predecessor---in-interest, the same was not available and as such could not be settled in favour of the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel we find no merit in this petition, which is, therefore, dismissed.