IZHAR AHMED And Others vs Maulvi GHULAM HABIB And Another
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders passed by Settlement Authorities after the issuance of permanent transfer deeds to the parties. The dispute involved the successors-in-interest of a transferee of an evacuee house and an auction purchaser of two adjacent evacuee plots, both of whom had obtained permanent transfer deeds in 1965. In 1969, the auction purchaser alleged encroachment by the transferee, leading to various demarcation orders by the Settlement Authorities. The High Court declared these post-transfer orders to be without jurisdiction, holding that once permanent transfer deeds are issued, the Settlement Authorities become functus officio. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this view, holding that since the properties were distinct, owned by different evacuees, and bore different numbers, any dispute regarding trespass or encroachment after the issuance of permanent transfer deeds fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to resolve encroachment or boundary disputes after permanent transfer deeds have been issued to the parties?
- What is the proper legal forum to resolve a trespass or encroachment dispute between transferees of evacuee properties once permanent transfer deeds are executed?
- Does the issuance of a permanent transfer deed render the Settlement Authorities functus officio regarding subsequent disputes over the transferred property?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order, dated 14-4-1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the orders made by the Settlement Authorities after the issuance of permanent transfer deeds to the parties were set aside and declared to be of no legal consequence.
2. The petitioners are the successors in-interest of Abdul Shakoor who was transferred House No. B- II-2-S-6 formerly owned by one Harnam Das. Respondent No. 1 purchased at an auction two plots bearing Nos. B-II-2-S-4 and 5 formerly owned by Lal and Nanak sons of Amir Chand. Both Abdul Shakoor and respondent No. 1 obtained permanent transfer deeds in respect of the properties transferred to them in 1965. In 1969 respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner alleging that Abdul Shakoor had encroached upon parts of the plots transferred to him. By an order, dated 17-9-1969 a Deputy Settlement Commissioner directed Abdul Shakoor to remove the encroachments. Abdul Shakoor filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed on 21-10-1970. He then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. By an order, dated 11-1-1972 the Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition and directed the Additional Settlement Commissioner to have the different properties demarcated and then record a fresh order. After the remand the matter was heard by another Settlement Commissioner who directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to demarcate the area of the house of Abdul Shakoor in the first instance and then dispose of the remaining area; in the event the plots transferred to respondent No. 1 were found to be part of the house, the auction in favour of respondent No. 1 should be deemed to have been cancelled.
Respondent No. 1 challenged the decision of the Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the writ petition and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner, holding that after the permanent transfer deeds had been issued to the parties the Settlement Authorities ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter and that the proper forum to settle the dispute between them was the civil Court. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Judge.
3. It will be noticed that the properties permanently transferred to Abdul Shakoor and respondent No. 1 were owned by different evacuees and also bore different property numbers. The question whether one of the parties had trespassed into the property transferred to the other was one for the civil Court to decide and the learned Single Judge was right in taking the view that the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction in the matter. The parties have already gone to a civil Court. That being so, it is not a fit case for granting permission to the petitioners to leave from the order of the learned Single Judge.