Mst. SARDAR BEGUM vs Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI AND Another
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the transfer of a residential house in Lahore under settlement laws. The primary legal question concerns the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge a transfer order passed in favor of the respondent when the petitioner had not filed her transfer application until after the original transfer order was made and after appeals by her children against that order had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi and was estopped from challenging the transfer order, as the matter had already attained finality upon the rejection of her children's appeal, and her belated application and subsequent appeal were entirely time-barred and incompetent. The key principle laid down is that a party who was not an applicant at the time of the original transfer order and whose belated claim was filed long after the transfer attained finality lacks the requisite locus standi to challenge the proceedings.
- Does a person who filed a belated transfer form after the initial transfer order have the locus standi to challenge that order?
- Can a belated appeal against a property transfer order be entertained after the original transfer has attained finality through the dismissal of prior appeals?
- Is a party estopped from challenging a settlement transfer order when they had full knowledge of prior proceedings and failed to file a timely application?
1. ORDER.
2. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The dispute in this case concerns a residential house situate on Mohni Road, Lahore. By an order made on 15-12-1959 by Mr. Balagh Haider, Asstt. Settlement Commissioner; Centre-II, Lahore, the house was transferred m its entirety to respondent No. 1, Mst. Hussain Bibi. A son and daughter of the petitioner, Mst. Sardar Begum; filed an appeal which was rejected by the learned Additional Settlement Commis--sioner on 5-t-60. On the 30th April 1960, the petitioner filed a belated C H form, which was allowed to be entertained by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by. Condoning, delay. The order actually passed in this behalf by this Officer has not been placed on the record, but the learned Judge in the High Court has presumed that the condonation of the delay must have been subjected to the usual condition viz, that the property had not otherwise been disposed of.
3. It appears that no formal orders for the final disposal of the C H form of Mst. Sardar Begum were made by the Settlement authorities, and accordingly she filed a belated appeal on the 20th February 1964, to challenge the original order of transfer made by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 15-12-59, even though an appeal filed against the same order by her son and daughter had been rejected more than four years ago. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed as being time-barred by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 13th October 1964. Thereupon; the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, but the same was dismissed on the 29th March 1965.
4. Before the learned Single Judge in the High Court it was strenuously argued that Mr. Balagh Haider, Assistant Settlement Commissioner was not competent to transfer the house to the respondent, as the, powers of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner had not been delegated to him on the date he made the order, with the necessary consequence that the order must be held to be without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. 'The learned Judge repelled this contention on the ground that although under the order dated 15 December 1959, Mr. Balagh Haider had signed himself as Assistant Settlement Commissioner, but in the documents relating to the permanent transfer deed it was stated that he was acting with powers of a Dy. Settlement Commissioner. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the petitioner herself as well as her son and daughter had filed appeals in the Court of the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner against the order dated the 15th December 1959, which would not have been the case if they had treated Mr. Balagh Haider as exercising the powers of an Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Finally, the High Court has observed that as the question of the transfer of the property had been examined right up to the revisional stage, any illegality or infirmity attaching to the, initial order passed by Mr: Balagh Haider would stand condoned. On this view of the matter, the High Court has refused to interfere.
5. Special leave to appeal is sought mainly on the ground that the High Court was in error in thinking that Mr. Balagh Haider, Assistant Settlement Commissioner, had been delegated the powers of a Dy. Settlement commissioner, and that the infirmity attaching to the transfer order passed by him on 15-12-1959 could be cured by the mere fact that appeals and revision were filed against it and the order was upheld.
6. We consider that it is not necessary for us to examine these contentions, as the present petition can be disposed of on the short ground that the petitioner has no locus stand to challenge the order of transfer passed on the 15th December 1959. We have already stated that on that date she was not an applicant, as she filed her belated C H form only on the 30th April 1960, after the appeal filed by her son and daughter had been rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 5th January 1960. . The transfer order became final after the dismissal of the appeal and any C H form filed thereafter could not have the effect-of reopening the matter. The appeal filed by the petitioner in the year 1964 was clearly not maintainable in view of the inordinate delay, that had taken place in presenting the same against an order passed in December-1959. It is not denied' that the petitioner was all along aware of the proceedings taken by the Settlement authorities in the matter of transfer and in the appeal filed against the transfer order by the petitioner's son and daughter. In these circumstances; the petitioner was clearly estopped from throwing a belated challenge to the legality of the transfer order 'which had become final on the rejection of the appeal of her son and daughter on the 5th January 1960.
7. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.