MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN), PUNJAB and 2
This matter arises from petitions directed against a common judgment of the High Court concerning the transfer of urban property. The core legal questions involve determining whether the disputed property was available property in 1974, the legal effect of a departmental report indicating the property was not available and that the transfer was procured through forgery and fabrication, and the extent of locus standi when the contest is between a vendee and a third party rather than solely between vendor and vendee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the connected petition to examine these questions, noting that the lower authorities and the High Court failed to provide a determinative finding on the availability of the property, and that allegations of forgery required a thorough probe rather than leaving the matter in uncertainty. The appeal was ordered to be further processed subject to addressing procedural steps regarding deceased parties.
- Whether the disputed property was available property at the relevant time?
- What is the legal consequence of a transfer made on the basis of forgery and fabrication in the record?
- Does a third party have the locus standi to challenge a transfer independently of the sale-deed between the vendor and vendee?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--These petitions were ordered to be heard together as they arise out of a common judgment of the High Court though from separate Constitutional petitions. However, it has been reported that the petitioner in Civil Petition for leave to appeal No,429/84 is dead of which the learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware and undertakes to implead his successors-in- interest. The learned counsel for the Caveators has certain objections to it. Subject to such objections this petition should be completed for hearing and in the meantime the respondents shall take notice of the order passed in the connected Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No,428 of 1984 so that when the other one comes for hearing in appeal, the points of law taken note of therein may be attended to if otherwise that petition is complete for hearing.
2. The following questions of law require further examination in this Court for which leave to appeal is granted in C.P.LA. No,428 of 1984:-
(i) The question in issue was whether the disputed property was at all available property in 1974.
3. This question has not been answered at all by a determinative finding by any authority including the High Court.
(ii) The departmental report shows that it was not an available property. If so its transfer would be void.
(iii) The departmental report further shows that the impugned transfer made in 1974 was on the basis of forgery and fabrication in record. Such a state of affairs necessitated a probe. The matters could not be left in that state of uncertainty.
(iv) The contest being not between the vendor and the vendee but between the vendee and third party, tracing and limiting the locus standi to sale-deed was not prima facie in accordance with law.
4. ' Security Rs,5,000 in C.P. 428 of 1984.