SAIFUR RAHMAN And Another vs Ch. NAZIR AHMAD And Another
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop that was classified as evacuee property. Initially, the property was auctioned, but the auction was cancelled due to the highest bidder's failure to pay. Respondent No. 1, who was in possession of the shop, had filed an L.S. Form seeking its transfer. Despite this pending application, the property was auctioned again and transferred to the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 challenged this transfer via a writ petition, which the High Court accepted, remanding the case with instructions to first dispose of the respondent's L.S. Form. Following the remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners challenged this subsequent transfer in the High Court, which dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the property could not be validly auctioned while the respondent's L.S. Form remained pending and undisposed. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, affirming the principle that prior pending claims must be adjudicated before auctioning evacuee property.
- Can evacuee property be auctioned while an L.S. Form for its transfer remains pending and undisposed?
- Is the High Court justified in remanding a case to ensure a pending L.S. Form is decided before an auction is finalized?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute between the parties relates to a shop. It was evacuee property and was put to public auction. The highest bid was offered by one Pervez Khan who did not pay the auction price. The auction proceedings were therefore; cancelled and the property was resumed.
He is no longer in picture. Respondent No.1 was in possession of the shop. He filed L.S. Form to seek transfer of the shop. Nevertheless, the shop was again put to auction and as a result thereof it was transferred to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the transfer made in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition was accepted and the case was remanded with the direction that the L.S. Form submitted by him should be disposed of first. After the remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop to respondent No.1. The petitioners challenged the order of transfer through a writ petition in the High Court. It was dismissed. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we do not think this a fit case for interference by this Court. While the L.S. Form of respondent No.1 remained undisposed, the shop could not be put to auction. The High Court was therefore, justified in not interfering with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner made in pursuance of its own remand order. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.