MASOOD KHAN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: --The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to Shop No. 835 situate in Giri Ganj Bazar of Bahawalpur Town. It was evacuee property and was put to auction in 1960 by the Settlement authorities. The petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.8,200 which was approved. He deposited his compensation book whereupon a P.T.O. Was issued in his favour on 25- 7-1960.

Subsequently, he obtained the possession of the shop. According to him, he approached the local Deputy Settlement Commissioner on a number of occasions for the adjustment of the price but he was told that his compensation book was under scrutiny and that further intimation would be sent to him after the scrutiny was complete. However that may be, he received a notice on 1-10-1967 whereby he was called upon to pay Rs.2,188 in lump sum before 9-10-1967. He wrote back on the notice that he should be furnished with the details of the accounts relating to the shop. Nevertheless, on 9-10-1967 his attorney appeared before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and made a request that while 'adjusting the price of-the shop he should be allowed credit up to 70 per cent. Of the amount of the compensation book and not at 40 per cent. Which had been done by' the Department. Apparently, his request was not accepted and on 18-1-1968 he deposited the amount claimed by the Department also in cash in the treasury after getting the challan forms duly attested by the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Many months later, he was served with another notice to deposit another amount of Rs.2,217 without mentioning how the earlier amount deposited by him had been adjusted. Nevertheless, in compliance with the notice he deposited another sum of Rs.29 together with the settlement fee of Rs.41 in the treasury on 20-8- 1968. When he approached the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for obtaining a permanent transfer deed he learnt that by an order dated 12-4-1968 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had resumed his shop and on negotiation basis transferred the same to Syed Khadim Hussain for a sum of Rs.5,760 on a permanent basis. From the order of resumption he filed an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional; Settlement Commissioner on the ground of limitation. He then preferred an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2.In support of this petition it is inter alia contended that the order of resumption made on 12-4- 1968 was illegal as he had already paid the entire price of the shop. Apart from that the order of resumption was made without any notice to him.

3.The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo with regard to possession of the shop to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal.