Mst. BILQEES BEGUM And Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIOINER And Other
This matter arises from a petition filed by Mst. Bilqees Begum and others against the Additional Deputy Commissioner and others, concerning the transfer of property measuring eight kanals in Faisalabad originally transferred to their predecessor-in-interest, Fazal Muhammad. While portions of the property were distributed to various respondents through protracted litigation, the remaining area was ordered to vest in the Government. The core legal question is whether the authorities were justified in ordering the remaining undisputed property portion to vest in the Government when it had already been transferred to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and was not allotted to any other claimant. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners requires consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that property validly transferred to a predecessor-in-interest cannot be arbitrarily ordered to vest in the Government without lawful justification when it remains unallotted to third parties.
- Whether property previously transferred to a settlement transferee can be ordered to vest in the Government without lawful justification?
- Does a challenge to the vesting of unallotted settlement property in the Government warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--- Property No.P-32, Ward No.10, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad, measuring eight kanals was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of Fazal Muhammad whose heirs are the petitioners. After protracted litigation, lot of the area has been given to the numerous persons i.e. Respondents 2 to 31. Rest of the area has however been ordered to vest in the Government.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would not like to question the transfer of the area to the respondents or anybody else and would confine his claim to the area which has been ordered to vest in the Government. It could not have been so ordered because it stood transferred to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest long ago and there was no justification to deprive them thereof without being given to anybody else either.
3. Contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.5,000. Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile. Appeal to be processed on present record. Parties may file additional documents if they so choose.