HAKIMUDDIN vs ARSHAD MAHMOOD AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the disputed transfer of property tenements. The petitioner claimed ownership of tenements G/1 and G/2, asserting they were purchased via public auction from settlement authorities. However, the petitioner failed to provide any departmental record, public notice of auction, bid sheet, or confirmation of sale to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, no Provisional Transfer Order or Permanent Transfer Deed was ever issued in the petitioner's favor, nor was there evidence of payment. Conversely, the record demonstrated that the tenements were transferred to respondent No. 2, who held valid transfer documents and had paid the evaluation price. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's claim, finding no merit in the contention given the complete absence of supporting documentation. The petition for special leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming that a claim of property transfer by auction must be supported by verifiable departmental records.
- Can a claim of property purchase through public auction be sustained without supporting departmental records or proof of payment?
- Is a petitioner entitled to claim property transfer based on an alleged auction sale when no transfer documents were issued in their favor?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner was in occupation of tenement No. G/1, Jiwan Street, Ramsawami, Karachi and the same was transferred to him by the Settlement authorities. He later on got the adjoining tenements Nos. G/2 and G/3 also included in his Provisional Transfer Order.
2. Both the tenements which constituted a separate 'House' were eventually excluded from the transfer in favour of the petitioner and directed to be sold by public auction.
3. Instead of sale by public auction tenements G/1 and G/2 were ultimately transferred to respondent No. 2 on a Choice Certificate. He had successfully drawn a House under earmarking scheme but the House was found to be no available for transfer.
4. The petitioner contended the transfer in favour of respondent No. 2 and claimed to have purchased tenements Nos. G/1 G/2 in a public auction. The claim was not supported by departmental Record. Neither public notice of auction, nor the bid sheet, nor confirmation of sale of G/1 and G/2 in favour of the petitioner were forthcoming. Rio P. T. O. Or P. T. D. Were issued on the basis of the alleged sale by auction in favour of the petitioner. He did not possess even a receipt showing payment of the sale price. On the contrary a P. T. O. And P. T. D. Of G/l and G/2 were issued' in' the name of respondent No. 2 and he has paid the evaluation price of both the tenements.
5. In the circumstances the High Court has ruled out the claim of the petitioner and we fully agree with the view.
6. The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed.