Pakistan Case LawBARKAT ULLAH SIDDIQUE Versus Mst. SAMIRUNNISA and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a specific property portion. The core legal question was whether the disputed plot of land, transferred to the respondent by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1976, had already been validly transferred to the petitioner in 1960 as part of a larger property. The petitioner argued that the disputed area was part of his earlier transfer and that the respondent's subsequent transfer was illegal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the disputed property was included in his original transfer or that he was in occupation of the vacant plot in question. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's new arguments regarding his association with a third party, noting they were raised for the first time on appeal and contradicted the record. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the disputed property was not part of the petitioner's original transfer, thus dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a party raise a new contention regarding the source of their title for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a prior transfer order by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner automatically encompass all subsequent claims to adjacent or disputed plots?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner fails to establish that the disputed property was part of their original transfer?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 2-12-1992, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No, 296-R/1978, filed by him was dismissed.
2.The dispute in this case relates to a portion of Property No, SE-6-R-245, Ihata Karam Chand, Mayo Road (Old Dharampura), Lahore. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 22-9-1960, transferred different portions of the property to various occupants thereof. The petitioner was also transferred a portion of the property which was in his possession.
3.In the year 1976, Mst. Samir-un-Nisa the predecessor-in-interest of (i) Abdul Saeed, (ii) Abdul Rashid, (iii) Abdul Waheed, (iv) Shamim Begum and (v) Nasim Begum filed B.S. Form for the transfer of plot measuring 6 Marlas located in the building over which she allegedly raised some construction. The Settlement Inspector visited the spot and made a report about her possession and construction raised by her. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Settlement Inspector transferred on 22-11-1976, an area measuring 6 Marlas and 162 sq.Ft. In her favour.
4.The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court through Writ petition No,296-R/1978, on the ground that the disputed plot formed part of the property already transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 22-9-1960. The writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order holding that the property in dispute did not form part of the property transferred to the petitioner and he had no valid claim for its transfer.
5.Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the disputed portion of the property was in fact originally in occupation of one Badaruddin to whom it was transferred and the petitioner through association with him got the same transferred in his favour. It was also contended that Muhammad Rafiq husband of Mst. Samir-un-Nisa had been ejected from a room occupied by him and the petitioner accommodated him in another room. The order of transfer' obtained by Mst. Samir-un-Nisa in respect of the disputed property is illegal because the same was not available for transfer as building site to her. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner have no merit. The petitioner at no stage asserted that the disputed property was obtained by him through association with one Badaruddin. This contention therefore, cannot be pressed into service for the first time at this stage.
As regards the other contention the perusal of the transfer order of portion of the property by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his favour shows that he was never in occupation of a vacant plot located in the building, therefore, this contention is also against the record. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and calls for no interference by this Court.
This petition is dismissed and .
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments