MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Munshi MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that had allowed a writ petition in favor of the respondent. The core legal dispute concerned the entitlement to the transfer of a shop under relevant property transfer schemes. The petitioner, who was in possession of the shop, argued that his possession alone entitled him to the transfer, regardless of who had constructed the property. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the shop had been constructed by the respondent and rented to the petitioner's son, who never applied for its transfer. The Court held that because the petitioner was not in possession of the shop on the crucial date of 1-1-1976, he lacked the requisite legal standing for its transfer. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioner had no valid claim to the property. The judgment reinforces the principle that entitlement to property transfer is contingent upon meeting specific statutory conditions, including possession on the prescribed cut-off date, rather than mere occupation.
- Is possession of a property on the crucial date a mandatory requirement for its transfer?
- Does a person in possession of a shop have an automatic right to its transfer regardless of who constructed it?
- Can a petitioner claim entitlement to property transfer if they were not in possession on the prescribed cut-off date?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: --Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.84-R of 1987 dated 6-7-1987 whereby the respondent No.1's writ petition was allowed on the ground that the shop in .Possession of the petitioner was constructed by the respondent and had been given on rent to Taj Din son of the petitioner. Taj Din had never applied for the transfer of this shop and the petitioner was by no means entitled to the transfer of the shop constructed by the respondent.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not relevant whether the respondent had constructed the shop or not. Since the petitioner was in possession, he should have been transferred the shop.
3. The contention is without force for the reason that the shop constructed by the respondent was given on rent to the son of the petitioner who never applied for its transfer. Since the petitioner himself was not in possession of the shop on the crucial date i.e. 1-1-1976, he was not entitled for its transfer. The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. There is no justification to interfere. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.