AHMAD KHAN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
This matter involves two civil petitions concerning the disputed transfer of a house in Model Town, Lahore, which had previously been allotted to Ahmad Khan. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the property to the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, based on information provided by him, was lawful under the prevailing settlement laws. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had declared the transfer in favour of the petitioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that the petitioner's claim, based on certain Press Notes, was invalid because the property was not 'hidden evacuee property' and the original transfer did not involve misrepresentation. The Court affirmed the principle that settlement authorities lack the legal power to transfer property to an informant where the property is not hidden evacuee property and where the original transfer was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the petition challenging the High Court's order was dismissed, and the related petition filed by Ahmad Khan was not pressed.
- Can settlement authorities transfer property to an informant if the property is not classified as hidden evacuee property?
- Does a Press Note issued by settlement authorities have legal sanction if it contradicts the statutory framework?
- Is a transfer of property valid if the original transfer order did not suffer from misrepresentation?
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-These two petitions concern the same subject-matter, namely, house No, 43-B, Model Town, Lahore, and they have been heard together and are now being disposed of under one order.
2. ' Civil Petition No, 109 of 1974 is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No, 1 Mst, Zakia Sultana, and declaring the order of transfer dated the 9th of February 1961, made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of petitioner Muhammad Hanif to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The N. C. H. Form filed by respondent No, 1 was directed to be decided by the Settlement authorities in accordance with law. The case of the respondent was that she had been living in the house with her husband Ahmad Khan, an allottee of the house, since 1947. Upon the commencement of Settlement operations, Ahmad Khan had filed N. C. H. Form and the house was transferred to him on the 19th of December 1959. On the 27th of December 1960, upon some information supplied by the petitioner, the Settlement Commissioner held that Ahmad Khan was not a displaced person and, accordingly, cancelled the said transfer. Ultimately, upon the direction of the Settlement Commissioner the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house in favour of the petitioner on the 9th of February 1961.
3. ' In the meantime, Ahmad Khan challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 27th of December 1960, in Writ Petition No, 1429/R of 1961 before the High Court but it was dismissed on the 21st of April 1964. His Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed on the 17th of March 1965. In Writ Petition No, 1429/R of 1961 and Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the order in the said petition the question for consideration was the status of Abmad Khan as a displaced person. Civil Petition No, 194 of 1965 has arisen out of Writ Petition No, 1429/R of 1961.
4. ' During the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Petition No, 194 of 1965 respondent Mst. Zakia Sultana filed N. C. H. Form on the 23rd of October 1965, for the transfer of the disputed house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, passed an order dated the 31st of January 1967, and rejected the N. C. H. Form on the ground that the house had already been transferred to the petitioner in pursuance of an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The respondent, thereupon, moved an application before the Settlement Commissioner disputing the validity of the order of the 7th of January 1961, whereby the house was transferred to the petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner expressed his inability to review the matter and, accordingly, rejected the respondent's application.
5. Thereupon, she filed Writ Petition No, 815/R of 1967 and the petition was allowed on the 6th of November 1973. Civil Petition No, 109 of 1974 arises from this order.
6. ' As regards Civil Petition No, 109 of 1974 it was contended before the High Court that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was a nullity because there was no provision in the Settlement Law enabling the Settlement authorities to transfer in favour of an informant a property which had not been a hidden evacuee property and in respect of which the original order of transfer had not suffered from any misrepresentation.
7. It appears that the petitioner had claimed transfer on the basis of two Press Notes dated the 7th of April 1960, and the 29th of September 1960. So far as the second Press Note is concerned it appears from the case of Sh. Muhammad Amin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (1) that this Press Note had no legal sanction behind it. As for the first Press Note dated the 7th of April 1960, it only applied to the case of a "hidden A evacuee property" and it did not apply to the present case inasmuch as both the parties had treated the property as evacuee property. The petitioner's only grievance was that Ahmad Khan was a local and he had fraudulently put N. C. H. Form. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer on the basis of the Press Notes and the transfer
(1) P LD 1966 Lab. 473 ' to him was illegal. That being so the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the order of transfer dated the 8th of February 1964, in favour of the petitioner was without lawful authority. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.
8. ' In view of our decision in Civil Petition No, 109 of 1974, Petition No, 194 of 1965 filed by Ahmad Khan has not been pressed and it is, accordingly, dismissed as such.
Cited by 1 case
- RAFI ULLAH KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others 2004 PLD Supreme Court 622