FAKHAR UD DIN vs MUHAMMAD MOHSIN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that upheld decisions by Settlement Authorities regarding the transfer of disputed property. The central dispute involves conflicting claims of title: the petitioner claims the property was reserved as a plot and transferred to his predecessor-in-interest in 1962, while the respondents claim the property was a commercial unit purchased by their predecessor-in-interest via open auction in 1964. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Settlement Authorities' proceedings in two distinct channels actually concerned the same property. Key legal questions identified for resolution include whether the respondents had locus standi to challenge the petitioner's transfer, whether the 1962 reservation order took precedence over the 1964 auction, and the legal effect of the petitioner's delayed payment of the property price. Pending final adjudication, the Court ordered the maintenance of status quo, conditioned upon the petitioner providing security to compensate the respondents for the use and occupation of the property at a rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, effective from the date of the last adverse order.
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge a property transfer if the properties in dispute are distinct?
- Does a property reservation order made in 1962 take legal precedence over an open auction conducted in 1964?
- What is the legal effect of a significant delay in the payment of the purchase price for property transferred under a reservation scheme?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition calls in question the refusal by a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court to interfere with the appellate and revisional orders passed by Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili--tation) Act, 1958, whereby the property in dispute was held to have been rightly transferred as shop to Aziz-ur-Rehman, the predecessor---in-interest of the respondents, with a further finding that the petitioner could not derive any benefit from the order of its reservation as plot, made in favour of his predecessor-in- interest.
2. It was the case of the petitioner that his predecessor-in-interest was successful in. Getting the property in dispute reserved as a plot for purchase through negotiation, through an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20-12-1962; in consequence whereof the plot was transferred on payment of the requisite price and a P.T.D. Was issued on 12-6-1970. On the other hand, the case from the respondents side was that in fact the property in dispute was a commercial unit and not a plot and that it was purchased by Aziz-ur---Rehman in open auction on 25-9-1964 in pursuance of which P.T.D. Was issued on 1-11-1965.
3. It appears that the properties belonged to different evacuee owners. They were given different property numbers. Different modes of their disposal were adopted by the Settlement Department.
4. In view of -the above facts, it is not clear, how an inference has been drawn that the proceedings by the Settlement Authorities in two channels---one conducted from 1962 to 1970 and the other in 1964-1965, in fact related to the same property. If the properties are different, a question would arise whether the respondents side had any locus standi to challenge I the transfer to petitioner's predecessor-in-interest notwithstanding the objections qua transfer by "reservation". Even if it be assumed that the property is the same, further question would arise whether the reservation made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in 1962 was unlawful and would not be given precedence over the auction conducted in 1964. Another question would also arise as to what is the effect of the late payment of the price by the' predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner (nearly eight years after the reservation) and whether the late determination of the price to be paid under the reservation scheme would neutralise the effect if any, of delay. We grant leave for examination of these questions. Security Rs.1,000.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking an order for maintenance of status quo, states that several shops and a residential unit have been built by the petitioner on the plot in dispute.
6. The respondent's case, it appears commercial unit which already has only been remodeled reconstructed. We asked the learned counsel that in case the petitioner ultimately fails and the respondents remain, out of possession for such a long time (since 10-10-1972 when the last order was passed in their favour) what would be the measure of compensating them because, otherwise, it would operate as injustice. He agreed that the petitioner can be asked- to furnish security to compensate the respondents in case of his ultimate failure at the rate of RS.1,000.Per mensero. Learned counsel was then asked to seek instructions from his client who remained present during the hearing. After some discussion, he also agreed on this arrangement. We accordingly direct that status quo shall be maintained subject to the petitioner furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,000 per mensem from 10-10-1972 till the decision of the appeal; in case he ultimately fails therein, to be paid as compensation to the respondents for use and occupation. The security to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Lahore High Court, Lahore, within two months.