LASSA SHEIKH and anothers vs MATEEN HAMEED
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning a property dispute over a plot of land. The core legal question involved the validity of the transfer of a plot originally allotted to a third party, Shaukat Hussain, in 1962, and subsequently purchased by the respondent. The petitioner, claiming entitlement as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir in possession of the plot, sought a declaration that the initial transfer to Shaukat Hussain was void and illegal. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's suit and decreed the respondent's suit for possession, which was upheld on appeal and in civil revision. The Supreme Court held that the respondent possessed a valid title to the property. The Court observed that the petitioner's application for transfer had been rejected, and the petitioner failed to challenge that rejection at the appropriate time. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and determined that no point of law of public importance existed to warrant interference. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does a petitioner have standing to challenge a property transfer if their own application for the same property was previously rejected and not appealed?
- Is a purchaser of a plot from a valid transferee entitled to possession against a claimant whose application for transfer was rejected?
- Does a civil revision require a point of law of public importance for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal?
1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J. ---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 12-1-1993.
2. The facts of the case are that the plot in question was allotted to Shaukat Hussain in the year 1962 and transfer order was also issued in his favour on 23-5-1980. The respondent had purchased the said plot from Shaukat Hussain. The petitioner No,1 filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration to the effect that the transfer of the aforesaid plot in favour of Shaukat Hussain was void and illegal. The case of the petitioner was that he being a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir and in possession of the plot was entitled to its transfer. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. The respondent had also filed a suit for possession of the plot. His suit was decreed. The petitioner challenged these decrees in appeal before the Additional District Judge but his appeals were dismissed. He unsuccessfully challenged the two orders before the High Court in Civil Revisions. It is an admitted fact that Shaukat Hussain was transferee of the plot in question. The respondent had purchased it for consideration. The form submitted by the petitioner No,1 for the transfer of this plot was rejected. He did not agitate against the order of rejection of his application.
3. The respondent has a valid title. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order.
4. 3.= No point of law of public importance requires decision by this Court. This petition has no force.
5. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.