PAKISTAN SPORTS CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD. vs Khawaja
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of two rooms previously attached to an evacuee industrial concern purchased by the petitioner-society. The respondent, a displaced person, had obtained a transfer order for an adjacent evacuee house, which included the disputed rooms. Following a series of litigation rounds, including eviction proceedings where the respondent successfully evicted the petitioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to correct the transfer documents to align with an earlier Settlement Commissioner order dated 6-12-1960, which allegedly excluded the disputed rooms from the respondent's transfer. The High Court, however, set aside this direction, prompting the current petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's contention—that the respondent's transfer was based on an order that never included the disputed rooms—required further examination. The Court held that the legality of the administrative correction of transfer documents based on the original, final Settlement Commissioner order warrants a deeper judicial review to determine if the respondent's claim to the property was legally substantiated.
- Can a Settlement Commissioner's original transfer order be used to correct subsequent transfer documents issued to a party?
- Does a party have a valid claim to property that was not included in the original transfer order issued by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a High Court's interference in administrative corrections of transfer documents justified when the corrections align with the original settlement order?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 2-11-1985 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioner-society.
2. The petitioner-society purchased an evacuee industrial concern known as the Kuchrija Sports Limited at an open auction held by the Settlement Authorities. Contiguous to the premises of the industrial concern was an evacuee house. After Independence two rooms frog this house were used by the allottees of the concern as show-cum-office rooms. The rest of the house was in possession of respondent No.1 who was a displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The dispute in this petition relates to the above-mentioned two rooms.
3. The portion of the house which was in possession of respondent No.1 was transferred to him on a permanent basis in pursuance of the order dated 6-12-1960 by the Settlement Commissioner.
Subsequently, on 24-4-1961 a provisional transfer order in respect of the whole house was issued in his favour. The petitioner-society which claimed the whole house to be a part of the industrial concern filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the said order. It was accepted by a learned Single Judge and the said order was set-aside. Respondent No.1 filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench which heard the appeal came to the conclusion that the residential house was an independent and separate property from the industrial concern; consequently, it set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-society. The petitioner-society then sought leave to appeal from this Court but without any success.
4. Respondent No.1 initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner-society in respect of the two rooms in dispute: As a result an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner-society by a Rent Controller. This order was upheld in first appeal by the Additional District Judge and in second appeal by the High Court. The petitioner society sought leave to appeal from this Court but without any success. It has since been ejected from the said two rooms.
5. While the proceedings for ejectment initiated by respondent No.1 against the petitioner-society were pending the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries) asked the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to correct the provisional transfer order and the transfer order issued in favour of the parties in accordance with the orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 6-12-1960. Upon learning about this direction respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the direction given by the Additional Settlement Commissioner This petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his order which is being impugned in this petition.
6. In support of this petition it is contended that the basis of the transfer made in favour of respondent No.1 is the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 6-12-1960. Respondent No.1 never challenged the legality or propriety of this order. It had thus, become final between the parties. A reading of this order clearly indicated that the two rooms in dispute were never transferred to respondent No.1. On the other hand, what was allowed to him was that portion of the house which was in his actual physical possession. Admittedly at the relevant time respondent No.1 was never in possession of the said two rooms. Thus, the claim of respondent No.1 to the rooms was without any basis whatsoever. The corrections made in the transfer documents issued to him were just in accordance with the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner and the High Court ought not to have interfered in the matter.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-society requires further examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to add additional documents if any.