MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 11 others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the ownership of land formerly classified as evacuee property in Jia Musa, Lahore. The core legal question was whether land validly sold by the Custodian of Evacuee Property with Central Government approval could subsequently be transferred to third parties under Scheme No. VIII by Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court held that once the property was sold to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, it ceased to be available for disposal under Scheme No. VIII. The Court affirmed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the competence to sell land from the compensation pool under the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant relief in a second writ petition where an earlier petition regarding the same subject matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution without adequate explanation. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the finality of the initial sale and the impropriety of subsequent transfers of the same property by Settlement Authorities.
- Can property already sold by the Custodian of Evacuee Property be subsequently transferred by Settlement Authorities under Scheme No. VIII?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the authority to sell land forming part of the compensation pool?
- Is a second writ petition maintainable when an earlier petition on the same subject matter was dismissed for non-prosecution without explanation?
- Section 10(2), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 12, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the same judgment of the High Court whereby the Constitution petition of Saeed Ahmad Mughal, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in CP No, 855-L of 1992, was partly allowed.
2. The dispute among the parties relates to a portion of land situate in the revenue estate of Jia Musa of Tehsil Lahore. It was formerly evacuee property and was sold on 24-5-1961 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, also exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, to Muhammad Hussain Comrade for the purpose of shifting his textile mills from a congested area of Lahore City. The sale had the prior approval of the Central Government.
3. The petitioners in CP No, 713-L of 1992 applied for the transfer of some portions of land sold to Muhammad Hussain Comrade under Scheme No, VIII in 1970 and obtained favourable orders.
Muhammad Hussain Comrade challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities in this regard in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that as the property had already been sold it was no longer available for disposal under Scheme No, VIII. The petitioners in CP No, 713-L/1992 seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of these petitions it is contended that in an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No, 466/R of 1981) the area cited by the petitioners had, been declared as urban building site and, therefore, it could not have been transferred to Muhammad Hussain Comrade. It is difficult to accept this contention. The decision in Writ Petition No, 466/R of 1981 was not inter-parties; it is, therefore, irrelevant so far as the petitioners are concerned. Apart I A from that, before selling the land to Muhammad Hussain Comrade the Chief Settlement Commissioner had obtained the approval of the Central Government. There is little doubt that he was competent to sell land forming part of the compensation pool the land both under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act (see section 10(2)) and under the e Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (see section 12).
As the land had already been sold by the Central Government to Muhammad Hussain Comrade no part of it could subsequently be transferred by the Settlement Authorities to the petitioners in Scheme No, VIII.
5. A part of the land had also been transferred by the Settlement Authorities to Malik Ghulam Mustafa and Malik Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Muhammad Hussain Comrade had earlier filed a writ petition to challenge the transfers made to C them. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Instead of seeking restoration of the said petition the petitioners in CP No, 855-L/1992 have filed another writ petition. There is no explanation why the earlier writ petition was not pursued. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in not granting any relief in the second writ petition. Thus, no case for interference by this Court has been made out.
6. For the reasons stated above both petitions are dismissed.