MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the interpretation of possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question revolves around whether a tenant holding property under a lease from the owners can be deemed an occupant in his own right to claim the transfer of an evacuee portion of the land under settlement laws, and whether delay in submitting the C.H. Form is a bar to such consideration. The High Court's Single Judge had initially accepted the writ petition directing fresh consideration and partitioning of the land, but a Division Bench accepted the Intra-Court Appeal and set aside those orders, holding that a tenant's status remains that of a tenant even after partition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to the transfer of the leased property portion following the repeal of section 2(vi) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The key principle established is that a tenant put into possession by the owner does not acquire an independent right of occupancy to compete for the transfer of the property under settlement laws.
- Can a tenant in possession of property seek its transfer as an occupant in competition with the person who inducted him as a tenant?
- Does the status of a tenant remain unchanged even if the property in question is partitioned?
- Does delay in the submission of a C.H. Form act as a hurdle in the consideration of a transfer claim under the settlement scheme?
- Section 2(vi), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---The dispute in this case revolves around the interpretation of possession as defined under section 2(vi) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
2. The respondents in this case owned some land, a part of which was also evacuee. The petitioner took some land from the respondents on lease and at the the of the commencement of operation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the petitioner also claimed the transfer of the evacuee portion. In exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction, a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition and took the view that since according to the scheme, a person in occupation can seek transfer of building site, therefore, the case of the petitioner should be considered afresh and since no date could be fixed as last date for the submission of forms, as such, the delay in the submission of C.H. Form by the petitioner could not be a hurdle in consideration of the case. The Single Judge of the Lahore High Court also directed to partition the evacuee land. An Intra-Court Appeal was filed which was accepted and the orders of the Single Judge were set aside. The Division Bench while disposing of Intra-Court Appeal took the view that a tenant in possession of the property could not be deemed to be an occupant thereof in his own right to compete with the person who inducted him in his possession as tenant in the matter of transfer of the same under the Settlement Law and even if the property was partitioned, the status of the petitioner shall remain as that of tenant and thus he was not entitled to the transfer of the property. Having considered all the pros and cons of the case, we are of the view that after repeal of section 2(vi) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, defining possession, whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of the portion of the property which was given to him on lease by the respondent. The question needs consideration, therefore, we grant leave to appeal. C.P. 1199 of 1980 be also put up at the the of hearing the appeal.