RAB NAWAZ KHAN vs HAKEEM INAMULLAH and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a property dispute. The petitioner, a former police officer, was permitted to reside in the disputed house as a licensee by the respondents. Despite admitting his status as a licensee and promising to vacate, the petitioner subsequently applied to Settlement Authorities to have the property transferred to his name. The respondents also applied for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII. While the petitioner's claim was initially rejected, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner later accepted his appeal. However, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the respondents' revision, citing the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974. The High Court subsequently set aside the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the controversy regarding possession, particularly in light of a specific Tehsildar report, required further judicial consideration. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, bar the maintainability of pending appeal-cum-revision proceedings regarding settlement property?
- Can a licensee who has admitted their status as such subsequently claim ownership of the property through settlement authorities?
- Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, passed in Writ Petition No,1350-R of 1985.
2. ' Rab Nawaz Khan petitioner herein after his retirement from the police was accommodated by Dr. Inamullah Khan and his brother to live in house in dispute as a licensee as he had no other house to live. On resistence to vacate the house by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the police where he admitted before the police authorities that he was installed in the house by the owner Dr. Inamullah and his brother and he promised to vacate the house within three months.
3. Notwithstanding this position the petitioner made an application to the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the house in dispute in his name. The respondent No,1 and his brother had also made an application for the transfer of the house under Settlement Scheme No,VII promulgated in August, 1961. The claim of the petitioner was rejected and that of the respondent No,1 and his brother was considered and the property in dispute was transferred to them vide order dated 1-3- 1974.
4. ' The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was accepted vide his order dated 31-7-1975. Respondent No,1 and his brother thereafter went in revision before the Addl. Commissioner (C) who vide his order dated 13-8-1975 rejected the same on the ground that in view of the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, the appeal-cum-revision was not maintainable. Dr. Inamullah then filed a writ petition before the High Court and a learned Single Judge while allowing the petition declared the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority.
5. The controversy with regard to the possession involved in this case, particularly in the light of the report of Tehsildar dated 6-10-1973, is worth consideration of this Court. Hence under the circumstances, leave to appeal is granted.
6. ' Security in the sum of Rs,2,000.
7. ' Appeal is to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further documents, if any.
8. ' Status quo is to be maintained.