AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT
This matter concerns the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VII as revised, involving conflicting revisional orders passed by different Settlement Commissioners. The core legal question addresses how to resolve competing claims and conflicting revisional orders regarding the transfer of property when a necessary party was not impleaded in subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since no previous valid order effectively remains in the field and the matter requires a fresh determination, the ends of justice would be best met by examining the claims of both the petitioner and the respondent together in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that all competing claimants must have their eligibility considered concurrently under the applicable settlement scheme to ensure a fair adjudication.
- How should conflicting revisional orders passed by different Settlement Commissioners regarding property transfer be addressed?
- Must the claims of all competing applicants be examined concurrently when determining eligibility under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- What is the legal effect of a revisional order passed without impleading a contesting party?
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHSBMA, J.-The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No, VII as revised. Besides Amir Abdullah Khan petitioner and Abdul Hamid respondent No, 2, there was also third applicant Musarrat All Khan. It is not, however, necessary to go into the background of the litigation, suffice it to say that two conflicting revislonal orders were passed within a fortnight's time by two different Settlement Commissioners in respect of the disputed house. Vide order, dated 25-7-1968, Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Sufi dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner whereby the house in question was directed to be put to auction. Subsequently, vide his order dated 9-8-1968, Mr. M. A.
Wasti, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner allowed revision petition of Abdul Hamid respondent No, 2, wherein he had not impleaded the present petitioner, and directed as follows :- "Application for transfer by the petitioner (Abdul Hamid) would now be taken up by enquiry vis-a- vis the occupations over the house and the passage of fresh orders. It is in these terms that this revision petition is disposed of."
2. The position as it finally stands, therefore, is that no previous order is in the field and the matter has to be decided afresh to determine the eligibility of respondent No, 2 in accordance with Settlement Scheme No, VII as revised. We feel that the ends of justice would be fully met if the claim of the petitioner is also examined alongwith that of respondent No, 2 in accordance with law. It is directed accordingly. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.