YAQEEN UD DIN And Others vs ABDUL MAJID And Other
This appeal concerns a property dispute regarding the Malawa Ram Cotton Factory, which was sold by public auction in 1956. The core legal question is whether the auction sale included Khasra No. 792 in addition to Khasra Nos. 793 and 794. The High Court had previously accepted the respondent's claim, relying on a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) that included Khasra No. 792, despite noting evidence of record tampering. The Supreme Court observed that the Settlement Commissioner failed to properly examine conflicting sets of documents regarding the property's scope and the authenticity of the records. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the findings and remanded the case to the Notified Officer under the Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Court directed an inquiry to determine the genuine extent of the auctioned property and to investigate whether the appellants, as alleged allottees, possess the locus standi to challenge the respondent's claim, particularly in light of contentions regarding alternate allotments.
- Can a court remand a case for further inquiry when there is a dispute regarding the authenticity of conflicting property records?
- Does a Notified Officer under the Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 have the authority to determine the scope of a property sold at auction?
- Is it necessary to determine the locus standi of appellants in a property dispute if they have received alternate allotments?
- Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--In this appeal the dispute is as to whether Malawa Ram Cotton Factory, sold by public auction on 24th December, 1956 and purchased by respondent Abdul Majid for Rs.2, 76, 000, comprised only Khasras Nos. 793 and 794 measuring 39 Kanals and 9 Marlas or included also Khasra No.792 measuring 60 Kanals and 17 Marlas. While examining the record we came across two sets of documents; one set supporting the appellants' case and the other the claim of the respondent.
2. The finding of the High Court .Is that the record was tampered with and the petition was accepted principally or the ground that in the permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued in favour of respondent Abdul Majid on 21st of April, 1962, Khasra No. 792 was also included. The case of the appellants is that they are confirmed allottees of land comprised in Khasra No. 792, and, accordingly, they had laid a claim to this land on having come to know that this had been wrongly included in the Permanent Transfer Deed. Obviously, the High Court was justified in holding that there was tampering of the record but the documents on which the respondent has relied do not appear to have been examined by the Settlement Commissioner in his order. And all that we find from the order is that he has laid emphasis on the bid-sheet and the inventory signed by the respondent for rejecting his claim. In the absence of any determinative finding with regard to the two sets of documents as to which set is genuine or fabricated, we would remand the case to the Notified Officer designated under the Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties for holding an inquiry into the matter for reaching a conclusion as to whether the factory auctioned also comprised Khasra No. 792 alongwith the other two Khasra numbers. Further as it was contended by the counsel for the respondent before us that the appellants had been given alternate allotments, the Notified Officer should also go into this question so as to determine as to whether they have any locus standi to question the claim of the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.