MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Others vs BASHIR AHMAD And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition arising out of an urban settlement case concerning a disputed house. The core legal question is whether property already transferred to a respondent on a C.H. Form remains available for transfer to a fresh applicant who subsequently submitted an N.C.H. Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly concluded that nothing could be transferred to the petitioners because the property in question was not available at the relevant time. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a previously transferred property cannot be treated as available for subsequent fresh transfer applications under the settlement schemes.
- Whether property already transferred on a C.H. Form remains available for transfer to a fresh applicant?
- Can an N.C.H. Form application lead to the transfer of property when the property is not available?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 14-12-1980 of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition arising out of an urban settlement case filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to a house which is the subject matter of another petition which having been allowed, the case has been remanded to the High Court.
3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein had also made an application for transfer on N. C . H . Form in connection with the same house in September, 1969, while the property stood transferred on a C.H. Form to Ghulam Ali, respondent No.2, in January, 1960. The contest between Ghulam Ali and Bashir Ahmad (respondent No.1) regarding the house' in question through various proceedings, however, continued till 1968, when Bashir Ahmad's appeal was dismissed in 1968, in second round of litigation. Bashir Ahmad had filed a revision petition during the pendency of which predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners found an opportunity of submitting an N.C.H. Form as noted earlier in September, 1969. This applicant not having been transferred any portion of the house also filed a separate writ petition in the High Court (Bashir Ahmad respondent had filed the other writ petition). It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge in limine with a finding that even if the N.C.H. Form filed from the petitioners' side be treated as one under Settlement Scheme NO.VIII, nothing could be transferred on this form, as the property in question was not then available.
4. In support of this petition for leave to appeal, learned counsel has contended that notwithstanding the transfer of the property on C.H. Form of Chulam Ali, it was available for transfer to a fresh applicant. After haring him in support of this plea, we have not keen able to find any reason to differ with the view taken by the High Court. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.