Hafiz AHMAD SHAFI vs KALLU KHAN AND 4 Other
The petitioner, a local government servant, sought the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, claiming its value was under Rs. 10,000. Settlement Authorities valued the property above Rs. 10,000, placed it on an earmarking list, and subsequently transferred it to the respondent, who paid the full price and received a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.). The petitioner acknowledged the respondent as his landlord and paid rent. Years later, relying on administrative letters from the Chief Settlement Commissioner that purportedly allowed for the review of cases involving locals, the petitioner sought to revive his claim. The Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected the request, and the High Court dismissed subsequent writ and intra-court appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's conduct—specifically his acceptance of the respondent as landlord—disentitled him to relief. Furthermore, the Court ruled that administrative instructions cannot be used to reopen past, closed transactions or disturb vested rights lawfully created in favor of third parties.
- Can administrative instructions from a Chief Settlement Commissioner be used to reopen past and closed transactions?
- Does a petitioner's acceptance of a transferee as a landlord disentitle them from later challenging the transfer of the property?
- Can administrative letters disturb vested rights lawfully created in favor of third parties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Paragraph 3, Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner who is a local and was in Government service at the relevant time, filed a L. H. Form on the 5th of August 1959, for transfer of the house in dispute bearing No. 16- A, Block .23, Sargodha, on the ground that it was of the value of less than Rs. 10,000 and that the petitioner being in its occupation, was entitled to its transfer under para. 3 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, hereinafter des--cribed as the Act. The value of the house, however, was found to be more than Rs. 10,000 by the Settlement Authorities who placed it on the earmarking list showing its gross rental value at Rs. 600 per annum. Lots were drawn on the 16th of December 1959, and the house fell to the lot of respon--dent No. 1, Kallu Khan, who paid Rs. 21,600 as its price and a P. T. O. Was duly issued in his favour on the 6th of January 1960. Thereafter, Kallu Khan served a notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Act which was duly acknowledged by him on the 24th of June 1960. The peti--tioner atoned in favour of the respondent thereafter and tendered rent to him. Relying on the Chief Settlement Commissioner's letters dated the 27th of July 1961 and the 9th of August 1961, printed at pages 625- 626 of the new Settlement Manual, whereby he had withdrawn restrictions placed on the eligibility of the locals to the transfer of the properties in their posses--sion and permitted review of their cases decided earlier under those restrictions, the petitioner submitted an application on the 9th of January 1962, for revival of his L. H. Form and for transfer of the house in dispute to him. The petitioner's case was ultimately referred to the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner who rejected his claim on the ground that the matter could not be reopened. The petitioner then brought a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, rejecting .His claim for the house in question, which was dismissed and a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court has also been dismissed. Hence, this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. We consider that the relief sought by the petitioner was rightly withheld from him by the Settlement Authorities and by the High Court. In fact, his own conduct disentitled him to any relief. He did not take any objection to the placing of the house in the earmarking list and later when it was transferred in favour of the respondent, he accepted him as his landlord and paid rent to him in acceptance of his status as his tenant. We are also of the opinion that the instructions contained in the letters of the Chief Settlement Commissioner referred to above on which the petitioner sought to revive his claim to the house in question, cannot be invested with a legal sanction to reopen past and closed transactions and to disturb vested rights which were lawfully created in favour of other persons.
3. We see no substance in this petition which is dismissed.