MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Mst. ISLAM BIBI AND 7 Other

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to an evacuee shop No. P/72, Harcharanpura, Lyallpur. It was originally included in the auction pool, as no claim had been filed for its transfer. But as it was in the possession of a local it could not be auctioned. The present petitioner, who is a displaced person, moved the Settlement Authorities against the occupant as an informer alleging that he was in unauthorised occupation. But subsequently it was found that it had been transferred to the heirs of one Qaim Din who was originally in possession of this shop with one Ghulam Muhammad on the 2nd of December 1959, although the said Qaim Din had been murdered in 1957 and his heirs had left for Karachi and settled there. At first no action was taken on his complaint, but subsequently enquiries were made and the Director of Enforce--ment on the 20th June 1962, made a reference to the Settlement Commissioner. The latter set aside the transfer in favour of the respondents, who are the heirs of Qaim Din, and transferred the shop to the petitioner on the 5th October 1962. The petitioner then filed a petition for ejectment of Ghulam Muhammad from the shop. Thereafter, a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution was moved in the High Court of West Pakistan by the present respondents. The High Court relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Siddiq and others v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore (PLD 1965 SC 123) held that the order of cancellation was wholly without jurisdiction, as by a change of law introduced by Ordinance No. II of 1962 on the 13th January 1962, the power to transfer properties to informers had disappeared. This decision was upheld also by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that since the application in the present case to the Enforcement Department was made on 4-12-61 before the change of law the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities must be taken to be pending proceedings which were protected by reason of the provisions of sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act.

3. We are, however, unable to agree that these provisions of the General Clauses Act are at all attracted in the present case, for, the jurisdiction that was exercised by the Settlement Commissioner in cancelling the transfer in favour of the res--pondents and transferring the property to the petitioner as an informant was conferred under an order of the Central Govern-- ment bearing No. S. R. O. 824 (K)/61, dated the 1st September, 1961, which order has not been repealed. What has happened in the present case is that section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, has been amended by Ordinance No. II of 1962 by deleting there from clause (b), which gave power to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer or dispose of a property out of the compensation pool "in such other manner as may be approved by the Central Government". The order of 1st September 1961, was the other manner of disposal approved by the Central Government. This clause (b) having been deleted there was no power left in the Central Government to approve of any other method of disposal of evacuee property and, therefore, this Court held in the above--mentioned case that after the introduction of the change the Settlement Authorities were also left with no power to make such a transfer to an informer.

4. The Letters Patent Bench has also found that in the present case the reference by the Enforcement Staff itself was made on the 20th of June, 1962, which is a little more than six months after the - change in the law. Therefore, the reference itself was incompetent on this date and, as such, no proceeding was at all pending. For these reasons we find no sufficient ground for granting special leave in this case and accordingly dismiss this petition.