RAHMAT ALI and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning a plot of evacuee land measuring approximately 9-1/2 marlas in Barkatpura, Lahore. The petitioners, having purchased the plot through an auction in 1974, challenged a High Court decision that had set aside their transfer in favour of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 claimed the same plot had been transferred to him earlier in 1963 under Scheme No. VI. The core legal question was whether the plot auctioned to the petitioners was identical to the one previously transferred to respondent No. 3. The Supreme Court observed that respondent No. 3 provided documentary evidence, specifically an assessment report from 1964, confirming the plot bore the same Khasra number as the one auctioned to the petitioners. Conversely, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence to refute this claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct and refused to interfere, thereby upholding the cancellation of the petitioners' transfer. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of evidentiary proof in establishing title over disputed property.
- Does the transfer of evacuee property through auction prevail if the property was previously transferred to another party under a settlement scheme?
- Is a High Court order declaring a transfer of property to be of no legal effect sustainable when documentary evidence confirms a prior valid transfer of the same property?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petitin for special leave to appeal relates to a plot measuring about 9-1/2 marlas, bearing Khasra No,5757/5758, in Barkatpura near Shalamar Town, Lahore. It was evacuee property and was put to auction on 27-4-1974. The petitioners offered the highest bid and it was transferred to them.
2. Soon after the transfer respondent No,3 moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner seeking cancellation of the transfer made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the plot had already been transferred to him on 18-12-1963 under Scheme No, VI and that he had paid the price thereof partly through cash and partly through compensation book. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that after the repeal of the Settlement laws, he was left with no authority to interfere with the matter. Respondent No,3 then invoked the constitutional jurisdicton of the High Court to seek relief in the matter. The High Court accepted his petition and declared the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioners to be of no legal effect. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The controversy between the parties revolved round the question whether the plot transferred to respondent No,3 was the same which had been auctioned off in favour of the petitioners.
Respondent No,3 has placed on record a photostat copy of the Assessment of Building Site prepared by the Settlement Inspector on as for back as 2-7-1964 which leaves no room for doubt that the plot transferred to him bore Khasra No, 5757/5758. On the other hand, the petitioners did not place any document refuting the claim of respondent No,3. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.
Leave to .