LAEEQ AHMAD And Another vs MAQSOOD AHMAD And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent. The dispute arose over the transfer of a plot of land, for which the respondent had obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) in 1973. Subsequently, the petitioners claimed the land had been purchased by them in an open auction, leading the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (D.S.C.) to cancel the respondent's P.T.D. in 1978. The High Court set aside this cancellation, holding that the D.S.C. lacked the authority to cancel a P.T.D. once issued, particularly in the absence of fraud, and that such disputes must be adjudicated by a Civil Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the reasoning. The Court affirmed that administrative departments possess no authority to cancel a P.T.D. after its issuance, establishing the principle that any subsequent dispute regarding title or entitlement after the issuance of a P.T.D. must be resolved exclusively through civil litigation.
- Does the Deputy Settlement Commissioner have the authority to cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed once it has been issued?
- Is a Civil Court the appropriate forum to resolve disputes regarding property title after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed be cancelled by the Settlement Department in the absence of fraud?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-2-1986, by which the writ petition of the respondent No.1 was accepted.
2. Maqsood Ahmad respondent No.1 being in possession of the disputed plot bearing Khasra No.1158- min, situate at Ramgarh, Lahore, raised construction 1~ereupon prior to 20-11-1958. He filed form for its transfer in 1959 which lost in the office, thereafter he filed another form on 13-5-1971 in the office of the D.S.C. For its transfer. The D.SC. Vide his order dated 17-2-1973 transferred the disputed site to the respondent N6.1 and after payment of the transfer fee the P.T.D. Was issued to him on 30-5- 1973. On the application of the petitioners before the M.B.R. (C&R) Wing Punjab claiming that the disputed site was purchased by them in open auction, the D.S.C. Re-opened the matter and cancelled the said site from the name of the respondent No.1 on 7-3-1978. Writ petition of the respondent No.1 against the said order was filed before the Lahore High Court and the learned Single Judge while accepting the writ petition of Maqsood Ahmad respondent concluded as under:-- "I am of the view that instead of cancelling the P.T.D. In favour of the petitioner, the D.S.C. Should have directed Aqeel Ahmed and Laeeq Ahmed respondents to file suit before the Civil Court because after the issuance of the P.T.D. He had no authority to cancel the same, more particularly, when. There were no allegations of fraud against the petitioner."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned finding of the learned High Court, we have come to the conclusion that there is no fault or legal infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we dismiss this petition for leave to appeal, with the observation that the departments are left with no authority to cancel the P.T.D. And it is the Civil Court to decide the dispute between the parties.
Cited by 2 cases
- IBRAHIM and others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONS.), SARGODHA 2001 YLR 2980
- IBRAHIM, etc. vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER, etc. 2001 C.L.R. 535