GHULAM FATIMA vs Syed ZAFAR HUSSAIN WASTI AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside a transfer order issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in favor of the petitioner, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, regarding a disputed property. The respondent, a non-claimant displaced person, had successfully challenged the transfer, obtaining a direction for the transfer of the ground floor to himself. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, contends that the respondent is estopped from challenging the transfer because he failed to object when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner visited the premises, and because she incurred significant renovation expenses on the property in reliance on his conduct. Furthermore, the petitioner challenges the legal validity of the Additional Settlement Commissioner accepting the respondent's transfer form after a Provisional Transfer Order had already been issued to her. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the issues regarding estoppel and the authority of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to accept late transfer applications after the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order merit further judicial consideration.
- Can a party be estopped from challenging a property transfer if they failed to object when the property was initially transferred to another person?
- Is it legally permissible for an Additional Settlement Commissioner to accept a transfer form after a Provisional Transfer Order has already been issued to another party?
ORDER
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition for special leave to appeal are as follows The property in dispute was transferred as a whole to the petitioner by order of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner. The respondent, Syed Zafar Hussain Wasti, challenged this order by a petition for a writ in the High Court of West Pakistan. He was successful in having the order of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner quashed and obtaining a direction that the Settle--ment authorities should transfer the ground floor of the property in dispute to him in accordance with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 2nd August 1960. A Letters Patent Bench dismissed the appeal of Mst. Ghulam Fatima from this order. She now seeks special leave to appeal.
2. The respondent is a non-claimant displaced person and was in occupation of the ground floor of the property in question. Mst. Ghulam Fatima is a claimant displaced person and was in possession of the entire first floor of the property. She also had in her possession a garage and some out-houses on the ground floor. It appears that a NCH Form had been put in by the respondent in this case after a Provisional Transfer Order had been issued to Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
3. Prior to the issue of that document, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had visited the premises in question and had asked the respondent whether he had any objection to the transfer of the property in favour of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. It seems to be an admitted fact that he raised no such objection. It is contended by Mr. Bashir Ahmad on behalf of the petitioner, that after the issue of the P. T. O. In favour of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, she incurred considerable expenditure in renovating the property, acting on the faith of the respondent's statement that he was not interested in the property. It is con--tended that his conduct might be sufficient to raise the bar of estoppel against him. The point certainly merits consideration.
4. The respondent put in his Form on the 13th June 1960, where--as the petitioner had, it seems, spent money on the property in February and March 1960, after obtaining the order of transfer on the 13th November 1959, and the P. T. O. On the 4th February 1960. This is borne out by leer affidavit on the file at page 75 et seq.
5. Mr. Bashir Ahmad also contends that it was not open to the Additional Settlement Commissioner to accept the transfer form of the respondent after a P. T. O. Had been issued to the petitioner, at such a belated stage, even though further extension for such applications were allowed by the Settlement authorities. Whether or not the Additional Settlement Commissioner could accept it if the property already stood in the name of another person, is a point which too may have to be considered.
6. We therefore, grant leave to appeal as prayed. The petition will furnish security in the sum of Rs.
7. 1,000 as costs, prior to the appeal being heard.