REHMATULLAH And Others vs YUSAF And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court regarding the transfer of disputed property. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners had the locus standi to question a property transfer made in favour of the respondents in 1960, given that the departmental authorities and the High Court found no proof that the petitioners had ever filed the requisite transfer forms, and further noted their delay of over a decade in approaching the authorities. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-filing of forms and the conduct of the petitioners precluded any interference. The Court concluded that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transfer. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Does a party lacking proof of filing requisite transfer forms possess the locus standi to challenge the transfer of property?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent departmental findings regarding the non-filing of settlement forms after a prolonged delay?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The property in question had been transferred on 29-10-1960 jointly to respondent Yusuf, his father Toori, and their associate Syed Abdul Majid predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 and 3. The transfer was challenged by one Muhammad Akram whose appeal was allowed but the appellate order was set aside in the respondents' revision on 1-10-1964 which order became final when a writ petition filed by Mst. Khalida, daughter of Muhammad Akram was dismissed on 23-1-1973. The petitioners claiming to have been in possession of the property, and to have raised construction over it and also to have filed form, moved, in 1974, the Chief Settlement Commissioner who on 10-4-1974 directed that the matter be taken up in suo motu revision. The petitioners themselves also applied for suo motu revision on 10-7-1975. The learned Settlement Commissioner, however, declined to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there was no justification for interfering with the order of his predecessor dated 1-10-1964 after a decade and that the record did not establish the submission of form by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 16-2- 1980 after an elaborate discussion of the contentions raised by them. The High Court refused to interfere with the finding of the departmental authorities and rejected the petitioners' assertion to have filed form, observing in this connection that:---- "The conduct of the petitioners that they did not pursue the disposal of the forms, if they had filed, for thirteen years and raised no objection when the property in dispute was transferred to Muhammad Yousaf, brother of petitioners 4 and 5, raises strong presumption that they did not file the requisite forms."
2. The petitioners having failed to, establish that they had filed form in the, with which finding there is no reason for interference by this Court, they lost their locus standi to question the transfer made in favour of the respondents. This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.