SALAHUDDIN AND Other vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER II, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of residential property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as heirs of a non-claimant displaced person, could reopen a property transfer case finalized in 1960, based on an unaddressed NCH form filed in 1959 and a subsequent, failed attempt to claim the property upon its alleged resumption from the original transferee. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' failure to pursue their claim for over fifteen years, until 1975, rendered the matter stale and precluded reopening. The Court further held that a previous judicial observation allowing the petitioners to approach authorities was contingent upon the property actually being resumed from the original transferee; since the property was restored to the original transferee, that contingency never materialized. The key principle laid down is that long-standing property transfers, finalized by settlement authorities, cannot be reopened at a highly belated stage due to the claimant's own lack of vigilance and failure to pursue remedies in a timely manner.
- Can a property transfer finalized by settlement authorities be reopened after a lapse of fifteen years due to a previously unaddressed claim form?
- Does a conditional observation by a High Court regarding the potential resumption of property create a vested right for a claimant if the condition is not met?
- Is a lack of vigilance in pursuing a property claim a sufficient ground to deny the reopening of a settled transfer case?
ORDER - KARAM ELAHEB CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about a residential portion in property No. .
S-38-R-159, Circular Road, Lahore. Muhammad Yaqoob (respondent No. 2) a claimant displaced person applied to have that portion which was transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 26-4-1960.
2. The petitioners who are heirs of one Shamasuddin after a long time filed an application that their successor-in-interest Shamasuddin who was a non-claimant displaced person had also filed an NCH form for the transfer of the above-mentioned property on 8-8-1959 which according to them had not been taken into consideration and that the portion in dispute should therefore be transferred to them. The Department rejected their application holding that the property stood transferred as far back as 26-4-1960 and the matter could not be reopened after the lapse of such a long time. The petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No. 1371-R/1975 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 23-1-1976 with the following observation :- " . . . . But the learned counsel could not challenge the finding that the petitioners after the submission of the form moved the Settlement authorities, for the first time, in the year 1975 pressing for its disposal. There is nothing on the record to show that after the form had been filed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners pursued the matter and, therefore, it is difficult for me to ignore the finding that the property stood disposed of earlier. Had the predecessor-in-interest of the petit--ioners been vigilant in pursuing his case perhaps then there would have been some force in the submission made by the learned counsel, but in the present circumstances I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned, especially when the property had been transferred to the respondent."
Towards the end of their submissions it appears that the petitioners brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the property had been resumed from the name of the respondent for non-payment of the transfer price and therefore, they prayed that the case of the petitioners may be considered in the light of that development. The learned Single Judge held that there was nothing on the record to support the aforesaid, but if we can say so make a gratis observation that if that was so the petitioners might approach the settlement authorities and it would be for them to re-consider the claim of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with the relevant law.
Taking benefit of the aforesaid observation the petitioners again filed an application with the Department claiming the property pleading that it had become available due to the cancellation of the order of transfer from the name of Muhammad Yaqoob. It may be mentioned that the order of the resumption obviously was subject to challenge by the respondent and it appears that be was successful in getting the said order set aside and the property was restored to and allowed to remain with him by means of order dated 18-2-1976. The petitioners' application which they had filed after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition was consequently dismissed on 29-4-1978 with a finding that the property was not available as it already stood transferred and consequently restored to the respondent.
3. The petitioners did not lose heart and again filed a Writ Petition No. 667-R of 1978 which was dismissed by the same learned Single Judge on 1-7-1978. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the last mentioned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the N. C. H. Form filed by Shamasuddin predecessor-in-interest of his clients was not disposed of and therefore the transfer of property to the respondent without disposing of the aforesaid form was not justified. Apart from the fact that Muhammad Yaqoob was a claimant whereas Shamasuddin was a non-claimant displaced person. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in his earlier order dated 23-1-1976 that the petitioners had moved in the matter only in the year, 1975 and as such the case could not be reopened at their behest after a lapse of such a long period was operative and still holds the field.
The petitioners did not challenge that order and as such it became final and cannot now be taken exception to before us. When confronted with this situation learned counsel argued that as the learned Single Judge had in hi earlier order observed that the petitioners could move the department in case the property was resumed from the name of respondent No. 2, therefore in the face of that observation the entitlement of petitioners should have been examined by the Department afresh. The contention has no merit. The observation of the learned Single Judge was dependent upon the finalisation of the resumption matter and if ultimately the property was not resumed from the name of the respondent, obviously the contingency on which the petitioners depend did not materialise and as such the stage for reopening the case of the transfer of the property did not arise. On our part we also feel that the property stood transferred as far back as 26-0-1960 to Muhammad Yaqoob and the conduct of the petitioners in not moving in the matter up till the year 1975 was a ground sufficient by itself in not reopening this case at such a belated stage. The orders impugned in the circumstances do not suffer from any error of law or fact warranting interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.