Maj. MEHBOOB HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PLOTS) And 2 Other
This petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of an urban plot between the petitioner and respondents, both claiming entitlement through separate auction processes. The petitioner, holding a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots) to entertain the respondents' application for transfer documents, arguing that the relevant settlement law had been repealed and the respondents' claim was neither pending nor genuine. Conversely, the respondents contended that they had completed necessary formalities and their case remained pending before the Settlement Authorities at the time of repeal. Both parties alleged fraud and forgery against each other regarding the documents supporting their respective claims. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, refusing to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that given the conflicting factual allegations of fraud and the complexity surrounding the status of the pending proceedings, the High Court's refusal to grant relief was unexceptionable. The petition was dismissed, as no justification for interference was established.
- Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse relief in a writ petition concerning disputed property transfers involving allegations of fraud?
- Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner proceed with an application for transfer documents after the repeal of the relevant settlement law?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition arises out of an urban settlement r:j~N The property involved is a plot. The petitioner, on the one hand and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the other, independently of each other claim transfer of the plot through auction said to have taken place at different stages. Petitioner claims to have obtained P T.O. And P. T. D. Also. The respondents' case is that they having completed the necessary formalities the Settlement Authorities were yet to issue the transfer documents and the matter thus would be deemed to be pending before them when the relevant law was repealed. They accordingly in this context also made application to the officer concerned to do the needful. The petitioner objected to the proceedings on several grounds including that after the repeal the respondents' case was neither pending nor genuine, therefore, the D.S.C. (Plots) had no jurisdiction to proceed with the application. Not having succeeded before the D.S.C. To stop the inquiry the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. It is clear from the position taken by both the sides that while the petitioner treats all the documents in support of the respondents' plea of transfer as forged and based on fraud, the same is being alleged from the respondent side against the petitioner. If the petitioner's case is based on fraud and forgery then the respondents' plea that there was a pending case for completion of the formalities of transfer might require serious consideration. On the other hand, if contrary to the position taken by the Settlement Department in their comments submitted before the High Court the petitioner's case emerges before the Settlement Authorities to be genuine, the respondents obviously would not succeed before the D.S.C.
3. In the afore-explained peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the refusal of the High Court to grant relief to the petitioner in its discretionary jurisdiction notwithstanding repeal of the law, is unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.