Mst. HAJRA BI AND Another vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND Another
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer and auction of evacuee property bearing No. O.T.F./27-G.I., Karachi. The core legal question concerns the legality of the Settlement Commissioner's order setting aside a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to respondent No. 2 and transferring the property to the petitioners, whose earlier transfer form had been rejected. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that once a P.T.D. has been issued and the petitioners' transfer form stands rejected, the Settlement Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to reopen the matter or set aside the P.T.D. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that restored the property to the respondent.
- Whether the Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to set aside a Permanent Transfer Deed once issued to a transferee?
- Can a revision petition be entertained against the transfer of property when the objector's transfer form has already been rejected?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of property bearing No. O.
2. T. F./27-G. 1., Karachi. It was put to auction but no bid was offered. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 made the highest offer of Rs. 11,620 which was accepted by the Settlement authorities. A. P. T. O.
3. Was issued on the 12th December 1962 and a P. T. D. Was issued on the 19th March 1963.
4. The property in dispute was in occupation; of one Hakim Qutubuddin, the husband of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. He did not file any form. After the property had been transferred to respondent No. 2, he filed an eviction application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On the 29th August 1964, the learned Civil Judge and the Rent Controller, directed Hakim Qutubuddin to deposit the arrears of rent and as the same was not deposited, his defence was struck off. Hakim Qutubuddin died and his heirs filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on the 31st January 1967. On the 16th March 1967, the Rent Controller granted one month's time to the heirs of Hakim Qutubuddin on an undertaking that they would vacate the premises by the 12th April 1967. During this period the petitioners filed a revision application before the Settlement Commissioner alleging shat there was a previous transferee of property in question and the subsequent transfer of the same to the res--pondent was illegal. This revision petition was allowed, Respondent No. 2 challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 283 of 1968 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated the 28th February 1973, set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored the property to respondent No. 2. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that Hakim Qutubuddin had filed C.H. Form for the transfer of the property on the 30th November 1959 but the same was misplaced and that the learned Settlement Commissioner was perfectly justified in transferring the property in dispute to the petitioners. The learned counsel, however, admitted that another form was filed after the loss of the earlier one was known, and it was rejected on the 4th December 1959.
5. In the presence of this admission, A the form of the petitioners was no longer pending and the Settlement Com--missioner was not justified in transferring the property in dispute to the petitioners.
6. Moreover, P. T. D. Had been issued to respondent No. 2 and the Settle--ment Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the P. T. D.
7. After careful consideration of the dispute between the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored the order of transfer in favour of respondent No. 2. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.