AZIZ KHALIQ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding the transfer of property. The dispute arose after the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred a property unit to the respondent, who subsequently entered into an agreement of association with the petitioner specifying a particular mode of division for the property. Although the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the agreement, the resulting provisional transfer order failed to adhere to the agreed-upon division. The petitioner's attempts to rectify this through administrative revisions and constitutional litigation were unsuccessful, leading to the current petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the Settlement authorities were legally obligated to align the provisional transfer order with the terms of an accepted agreement of association. Upon examination, the Supreme Court found that the contention regarding the failure to adhere to the agreed mode of division required further judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the administrative action taken by the Settlement authorities.
- Is a Deputy Settlement Commissioner bound to issue a provisional transfer order in accordance with the terms of an accepted agreement of association?
- Does the failure of a Settlement authority to adhere to an agreement of association in a transfer order constitute a reviewable error?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--A unit of the property situate in Qilla Gujar Singh, Lahore was directed to be transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to Muhammad Aslam, respondent No,3.
Shortly thereafter respondent No,3 entered into an agreement of association with the petitioner. In the said agreement the mode in which the unit was to be divided between the parties was specified. The agreement was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. However, while issuing the provisional transfer order, the mode given in the agreement was not strictly adhered to.
The petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the amendment of the provisional transfer order but it was dismissed. He filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner but that too failed. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to obtain relief but his petition was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that after the agreement of association had been accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the provisional transfer order should have been prepared in accordance with the mode of division indicated therein. This aspect of the case was then ignored both by the Settlement authorities and the High Court.
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.