MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had modified a previous decision regarding the transfer of the 'Sohan Lal Building' in Lahore. The core legal question concerned the appropriate distribution of disputed property between two claimant allottees, both of whom were displaced persons. The property had been subject to protracted litigation involving multiple settlement authorities, with conflicting orders regarding whether the property was divisible or indivisible. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had directed that the property be divided between the parties according to their respective actual possession. The Court reasoned that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had consistently described the property as divisible, noting it contained separate staircases and independent sets. The Court affirmed that both parties, as claimant displaced persons, were entitled to the allotment of the specific portions they occupied. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby confirming the division of the property based on practical occupation.
- Whether property containing separate staircases and independent sets should be treated as divisible for the purpose of allotment between claimant allottees?
- Are claimant displaced persons entitled to the allotment of the specific portions of property they are in actual occupation of?
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-2-1986, whereby L.PA. No,287 of 1970 of respondents was accepted.
2. ' On 12-1-1960 the entire Sohan Lal Building situated in Anarkali Lahore was transferred to Ch. Bhoora (predecessor-in-interest of the respond;nts) being a claimant allottee and Chiragh Din (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) was ignored. Chiragh Din and Khuda Bakhsh filed appeal for division of the house in dispute between the parties according to their actual possession. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal and divided the house in dispute amongst the parties, vide his order dated 24-6-1960. On revision of Ch. Bhoora, the learned Settlement Commissioner remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner by an order dated 7-12-1960. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner found the property as indivisible and vide his order dated 23-12-1960 transferred the entire disputed property in favour of Ch. Bhoora being a claimant allottee.
3. ' Being aggrieved, Chiragh Din filed revision petition against this order before the Settlement.
4. Commissioner who vide his order dated 7-2-1962 rejected the same and his writ petition before the High Court was accepted and transferred the entire house in his favour, side judgment dated 2-10- 1970. In meanwhile Ch. Bhoora died and his legal representatives filed Intra-Court Appeal against the order passed in writ petition, before the High Court. The learned Division Bench of the High Court, vide impugned judgment, while allowing the appeal, modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the portion of property in dispute of which Ch. Bhoora is in possession, shall be transferred to him and the other portion to Chiragh Din. Both of them having died, their respective rights shall vest in their legal heirs.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case with their help, we find, that Chiragh Din predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has throughout been describing the property as easily divisible, having two separate staircases, entirely independent sets and the division of which was asked by him to allow the parties to keep intact the respective portions of which they are in occupation. This fact is proved from the memo of appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and also from the grounds of revision. The record shows that right from the start of litigation both the parties have never denied living together in the disputed property. Both the parties being claimants displaced persons are entitled to the allotment of their respective portions in which they are in its practical occupation. This being the case, we think that the impugned order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court is unexceptionable and the learned counsel for petitioners failed to show any legal infirmity therein.
6. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.