Hakim NAZIR AHMED vs GHULAM MUHAYYUDDIN Another
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of an evacuee house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII to the respondent by drawing lots in 1960, followed by the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed. After more than eleven years, the petitioner challenged the transfer through a belated appeal, which was initially entertained by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and maintained in revision. However, the High Court set aside these orders upon a writ petition, concluding that the appeal was a mere counter-blast to ejectment proceedings and that the property was no longer available for transfer once the Permanent Transfer Deed had been issued. The core legal question involves the sustainability of a belated challenge to the transfer of an evacuee property after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference was warranted against the High Court's judgment where the belated challenge lacked bona fides.
- Whether a belated appeal against the transfer of evacuee property filed after eleven years is maintainable?
- Can a writ petition be entertained against a remand order passed by a settlement authority?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed bar the subsequent transfer of an evacuee house to another claimant?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The dispute in this petition arising from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2.61975 concerns the evacuee house No. BB/387. Krishanpurar Rawalpindi which was transferred under Settlement Scheme No. Y to, the respondent by drawing lots on 7-3-1960. P. T. U.
2. Was issuers in leis favour on 17-b-1960. This was followed by P. T. D. On 5-6-1971.
3. After more than 11 years of the initial transfer in favour of the respon--dent the petitioner challenged the transfer in favour of the respondent by means of a belated appeal filed on 7-6-1971 on the allegation that he was a non-claimant displaced person and allottes in possession of the house since 1958 and had filed a N C H form for its transfer on 15-11-1 59 which was entered in C SC register at No. 1139. The Additions Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal and remanded the case to DSC for enquiry into the matter. The respondent moved a revision against the remand order before the Settlement Commissioner who maintained the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
4. A writ petition filed by the respondent however, succeeded. It was found that the petitioner had not filed the belated appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7-6-1971 until the respondent on the basis of the transfer in his favour gave notice to the petitioner under section 30 of Act 28 of 1958 which the Rent Controller in the ejectment proceedings found was duly served.
5. The learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, took the view that the appeal was nothing but "counter--blast" to the ejectment proceedings against the petitioner by the respon--dent on the basis of transfer in his favour as far back as 1960. The High Court even doubted if the petitioner had at all filed any NCH form when at one stage, the position taken by him was that he wanted the transfer of the house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII though later he shifted his stand to say that lie had earlier filed N C H form for the transfer of house under Settlement Scheme No. 1. In these circumstances the High Court had no difficulty to conclude that a P. T. D. Having properly issued to the respondent the house was no more available for transfer to the petitioner even if he be in its possession.
6. The petitioner now seeks leave against the above judgment of the High Court.
7. The petitioner's learned counsel submitted that the remand order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner having been upheld by the Settlement Commissioner in the proper exercise of his statutory jurisdiction, no writ petition lay in the high Court against the remand order which cannot, by any stretch be treated as without lawful authority. In support of his argument, the learned counsel cited PLD 1963 Lah. 401. This objection however, was net raised in the High Court and therefore this cannot be allowed to raise at this stage. Even otherwise, the precedent case proceeded on its own facts and was not intended to lay a general principle.
8. The petition is hereby dismissed.