1970 SCMR 114

Mst. IFFAT BEGUM vs Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM AND Another

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1970 SCMR 114

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 299 of 1967 Writ Petition No.

Date1969-10-03

Judge(s)A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle‑Akbar

Authored byFazle‑Akbar

ResultLeave granted

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a building site in Rawalpindi between two rival claimants, Mst. Iffat Begum and Mst. Rashida Begum. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially transferred the entire plot to Mst. Rashida Begum, but later issued a subsequent order reserving the plot for Mst. Iffat Begum. Following appeals, the Additional Settlement Commissioner divided the plot equally between the parties, a decision upheld in revision. Mst. Rashida Begum challenged this in the High Court, which held that the initial transfer order in her favor had attained finality under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, because it was not appealed against, rendering the subsequent order transferring a portion to Mst. Iffat Begum unlawful. Mst. Iffat Begum sought special leave to appeal, contending that the initial order was passed without notice to her and despite her pending application, and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by transferring the entire plot when only half was requested.

Questions settled in this judgment

Does an unappealed order of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner attain finality under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
Can a Settlement Commissioner lawfully issue a subsequent order transferring property that has already been subject to a final transfer order?
Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner act in excess of jurisdiction by transferring an entire plot when the applicant only requested half?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 22, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

settlement of propertytransfer of propertyfinality of ordersDisplaced Persons Actjurisdiction of Settlement Commissioneradministrative law

ORDER

1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The dispute in this case relates to a building site No. AA/469-B, situated in Mohallah Workshop, Rawalpindi.

2. On 22-2-61 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transfer--red the entire plot to respondent Mst.

3. Rashida Begum. On 10-7-61 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner directed that this plot should be reserved for Mst. Iffat Begum. In the appeals filed by them the Additional .Settlement Commissioner directed division of the plot and gave one-half to each of the rival contenders and his order was upheld in revision by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner.

4. Mst. Rashida Begum then moved a writ in the High Court. The learned Judges being of the opinion that "The first order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner not having been appealed against became final under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act, 1958", held that the subsequent order transferring a part of the property to Mst. Iffat Begum was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Mst. Iffat Begum seeks special leave to appeal against the above order.

5. It was contended inter alia (i) that the first order dated 22nd February 1961, in favour of Mst. Rashida Begum was passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner without giving notice to the petitioner and without disposing of her application for transfer which was pending since 22nd August 1960, and (ii) that Mst. Rashida Begum had applied for transfer of only half of the disputed plot and as such the Deputy Settlement Com--missioner acted in excess of his jurisdiction in transferring the whole plot to her.