MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH BUTT vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property, specifically a house in Lahore that was vertically divided by Settlement Authorities. The appellant, a non-claimant allottee, occupied the upper portion, while the respondent, a claimant non-allottee, occupied the ground floor. The litigation arose from conflicting orders by various Settlement Commissioners regarding the eligibility of the parties for the transfer of the premises. The High Court had ruled in favour of the respondent, leading to the current appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent, alleged to be in occupation of only a garage, could be deemed in possession and thus entitled to the transfer of the disputed portion. Upon review, the Court found the appellant's factual contention regarding the respondent's limited occupation to be incorrect, as she occupied the ground floor comprising three rooms and a garage. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement in Court to retain their respective portions, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly, with directions for the issuance of fresh Permanent Transfer Deeds.
- Does the occupation of a garage and three rooms on the ground floor of an evacuee property constitute sufficient possession for the purpose of transfer to a claimant?
- Can parties to a property dispute reach a settlement in the Supreme Court to retain their respective portions of the disputed premises?
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-House No, S-VI-2-S-33, Rabbani Road, Old Anarkali, Lahore, was an evacuee property which was vertically divided by the Settlement Authorities for purposes of transfer and a portion was given to one Abdul Hamid who is not a party to this litigation. The dispute is confined to the other half of the premises of which the upper portion is in occupation of the appellant Muhammad Abdullah Butt a non-claimant allottee and the ground-floor is in occupation of the legal heirs of Mst. Iqbal Begum respondent a claimant non-allottee who has since died.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner excluded Mst. Iqbal Begum on the ground that although a claimant she was merely a licensee under the allottee Muhammad Abdullah appellant. Mst. Iqbal Begum succeeded in revision before the Settlement Commissioner who excluded Mr. Butt. The latter's second revision was, however, accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who reversed the decision and in turn excluded Mst. Iqbal Begum. Her writ petition was accepted by the High Court, vide order dated 8-10-1965. The LPA filed by Muhammad Abdullah was dismissed on 9-2-1966. Leave was, however, granted to him vide this Court's order dated 11-10-1966 to consider the contention that Mst. Iqbal Begum being in occupation of only a garage could not be deemed to be in possession and as such was not entitled to the transfer of the disputed portion of the premises.
3. Having been taken through the record, we find that the contention raised before this Court in support of the petition for leave to appeal that Mgt. Iqbal Begun was in occupation of only the garage is factually incorrect. In fact it was conceded by the appellant himself that she was in possession of the ground-floor of the disputed portion of the house comprising three rooms and a garage which also appears to have been used for residential purposes.
4. The parties, who are related inter se and have been living in two separate and independent portions for the last two decades have come to a settlement in Court. They have agreed to retain the portions already in their respective occupation, The appeal is disposed of in accordance with the above agreement between the parties. We may, however, add that fresh P. T. Ds. Will be issued to them by the D. S. C. In accordance with the settlement reached between them.