MUHAMMAD ALI vs RIZWAN HUSSAIN And Other
The petitioner, a local occupant of a residential portion within a composite property, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing his Letters Patent Appeal. The property in question had been transferred jointly to other claimants in 1959. The petitioner's initial claim form was rejected in 1959, and he failed to challenge the transfer until 1961. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of the residential portion despite the property being declared indivisible and the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the transfer. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the property was indivisible and the petitioner had acquiesced to the transfer by paying rent to the respondents. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner's challenge to be time-barred, as he had failed to file an appeal within the prescribed period. The Court affirmed that in the absence of a valid challenge to the transfer order and given the indivisible nature of the property, the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the transfer.
- Is a local occupant entitled to the transfer of a portion of a composite property that has been declared indivisible?
- Can a petitioner challenge a property transfer order after a significant delay and after having accepted the transfer by paying rent?
- Does the joint transfer of a composite property to multiple claimants support the finding that the property is indivisible?
ORDER
M.S. H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioner, a local, was in occupation, since 1951, of a residential Chaubara in composite property comprising four shops and residential portion. With the commencement of the Settlement operations, the entire property was transferred on 26-11-1959 jointly in favour of the four occupants of the shops who were claimants. The petitioner had also filed L. H. Form but the same was rejected on 25-12-1959. He remained silent for to years until 18-9- 1961 when he agitated the matter by filing an appeal. Having failed before the Settlement authorities, he moved Writ Petition No. 85-R of 1964 and when the same was dismissed on 5-7-1971, he filed a Letters Patent Appeal which to was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 24-11-1980.
Aggrieved he has through this petition sought leave to appeal.
2. The order of transfer of the property, dated 26-11-1959, whereby the petitioner had been ousted, has not been produced and there is no explanation for the lapse. However, as observed by the L.P.A.
Bench, the property had been declared indivisible and as such the petitioner being a local could not have been entitled to transfer of any portion thereof. That the property was held indivisible also finds support from the fact that it had been transferred jointly in favour of the occupants of the shops. The Additional Settlement Commissioner while rejecting the petitioner's appeal on 8-11-1961 had observed:- "The appellant (present petitioner) accepted this position some to years back and it is understood that he has also been paying the rent to the respondents for a certain period but now he has filed this appeal which is decidedly the-barred. Transfer of this property to the respondents was in the full knowledge of the appellant considerably long ago and if he was at all aggrieved he should have come up in appeal within the the prescribed by law."
3. In this background of the case no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court. The petition is dismissed.