MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Mst. MEHRAJ BIBI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim regarding the transfer of an evacuee house. The dispute originated when the petitioner sought the transfer of a house in his favour in 1978, arguing that the compensation book used by the original transferee, Ghulam Rasool, had been declared bogus. The core legal question was whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retained jurisdiction to entertain an application for the transfer of property after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not a fit case for interference. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, ruling that no application could be maintained before a Deputy Settlement Commissioner following the repeal of the evacuee laws. The Court further rejected the petitioner's contention that the transfer matter remained pending, establishing the principle that once evacuee laws are repealed, the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to adjudicate new claims or reopen past transfers ceases to exist.
- Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner retain jurisdiction to entertain an application for property transfer after the repeal of evacuee laws?
- Can a claim for the transfer of an evacuee house be treated as a pending matter after the repeal of the relevant settlement statutes?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to an evacuee house which was transferred to Ghulam Rasool, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 8, in preference to the petitioner in 1960. Subsequently, the compensation book of Ghulam Rasool was found to be bogus and the said respondents paid the price of the house in cash. In 1978 the petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner claiming that the house should now be transferred in his favour on the basis of his possession as the compensation book of Ghulam Rasool had been declared to be bogus. His application was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court calling in question the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. His petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. He then preferred an Intra-Court Appeal which too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not find that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. As observed by the learned Single Judge no application lay before a Deputy Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of the evacuee laws. The petitioner's contention that the matter of transfer of the house has still to be treated as pending is without any foundation.
We would accordingly dismiss this petition.