ALI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a Single Judge's decision regarding the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner, a non-claimant, sought the transfer of a house previously transferred to the respondents in 1960. The core legal questions concerned the eligibility of a non-allottee for property transfer without payment of rent arrears and the impact of significant delay in challenging a transfer order after vested rights had been created. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's findings, noting that the petitioner failed to pay required public dues and arrears of rent, rendering him ineligible for transfer. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner's thirteen-year delay in challenging the original transfer order, coupled with the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the respondents, precluded the grant of relief. The Court held that vested rights cannot be disturbed after such extensive delay and that the Intra-Court Appeal was correctly dismissed as not maintainable under the relevant statutory framework.
- Is a non-allottee eligible for property transfer if they have failed to pay arrears of rent and public dues?
- Does a significant delay in challenging a transfer order bar relief when vested rights have been created in favour of third parties?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a judgment of a Single Judge in a writ petition under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Section 3, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 1st July, 1980 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Intra-Court Appeal No. 187 of 1979 as well as the judgment, dated 6th June, 1979 passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 920-R of 1977.
2. The facts are that the petitioner filed on N.C.H. Form on 21st June-1960 for the transfer of House No. N-III-R-38, Ravi Road, Lahore. In respect of the same house another N . C H . Form was filed on 9th June, 1960 by respondent No. 2 along with an agreement of association surrendering his rights in favour of respondent No. 3. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the said house in favour of respondent No. 2 on 25th June, 1960. After the lapse of 13 years the petitioner moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner (on 14th July, 1973) for the transfer of the said house to him. He was advised to seek judicial remedy. Thereupon, he filed a revision petition in 1973 challenging the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on 25th June, 1960 whereby the said house had been transferred to the respondents. The Settlement Commissioner allowed the revision and remanded the case for a fresh decision in 1974. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner after re- hearing the parties gave the finding of fact that the petitioner was a non-claimant and having not cleared the arrears of rent was not entitled to transfer and that furthermore P.T.D. Had already been issued in the name of the respondents which remained in the field. This order was passed on 8th June, 1977 and it was against this order that the aforesaid writ petition was filed which was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The findings of the learned Single Judge are that non-allottees who had not obtained possession of the property claimed by them for transfer in pursuance of an order passed by a competent authority on or before the 20th day of December, 1958 would be deemed to be in possession provided that the rent and other public dues in respect of such property had been paid by them from the date of their alleged occupation. In the present case the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent, therefore, he was not eligible for transfer and that furthermore the fact also could not be ignored that the transfer in favour of the respondents of the house in question was made by a competent authority on 25th June, 1960 and the petitioner did not challenge the said order' for 13 years. Thus, delay .On his part also debarred him from seeking relief when vested rights had been created in respect of that house o fl others i.e. The respondents to whom P.T.D. Had been issued. The findings of fact by learned Single Judge were challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid Intra-Court Appeal which was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The findings of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed dismissing the Intra- Court Appeal of the petitioner are unassailable and call for no interference.
3. As a result this petition is dismissed.