1976 PLP 108 (SCMR)

Bashir Ahmad Ansari. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 10th October 1975. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by the Lahore High Court on 27th February, 1975, whereby a constitution petition instituted by respondents 1 and 2 in transfer of an evacuee house situate on the D. A. V. College Road. Rawal pindi, was accepted, and the Settlement authorities were directed to hold further inquiries on the lines indicated in the order. The relevant facts are that the house in dispute was transferred to three brothers and two sisters by an order made on the 25th January 1962 on the evaluation price of Rs. 3,

840. This price was paid by the transferees, but the Permanent Transfer Deed was not issued in their favour for several years. On the 30th April, 1973 a notice was received by the transferees from the Settlement Department requiring them to pay a sum of Rs. 3,840 as transfer prior, of the house. The notice did not make any reference at all to the previous payment made by the transferees in 1962, nor did it give any reasons for the fresh demand, It appears that the, transferees were not able to meet this fresh demand oral of their own resources, and accordingly all of them, except Mst. Bashiri (Respondent No. 2), widow of on to the brothers named Muhammad Ishtiaq, entered an association deed with the present petitioner Zarif‑ul‑Hassan Zubairi on the 30th July 1973. The petitioner Rs. 2,880 to the Settlement Department on the very next day, as the outstanding price of 27/32 share in the house, leaving out 5/32 share belong to Mst. Bashiri. On 4th August 1973, respondent No. 2 made an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner offering to pad the outstand ing price on behalf of the transferees in terms of amended Settlement scheme No. VIII. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, of this application of Mst. Bashri; proceeded to approve the agreement of association in favour of the present petitioner. Aggrieved by this action of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mst. Bashiri filed revision petition, which was, however; dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 24‑9‑1973. This order was challenged by Mst. Bashiri and respondent Mohammad Ilyas in the High Court. resulting in the order now under appeal before us. The learned Judge in the High Court has observed that the transferees lead paid the entire price of 3,840 as inti mated to Settlement Department the title of the transfer of tile house, anal accordingly the department could trot ultimately create another demand laid for the same amount towards years after the first payment had been made. The learned judge has further observed that in at all there was any justification doing any further amount towards the evaluation price of the house then the transferees were entitled to be heard before creation of a fresh demand. On this view of the matter he has directed that the Settlement authorities should hold proper inquiries in the matter after notice 16 the transferees. Leave to appeal is sought mainly on the ground that even if the fresh demand had not been validy created by the Settlement Department and a fresh inquiry was necessary in this behalf, the agreement of association en tered into between the petitioner and the transferees, other than Mst. Bashiri, could not be set aside. It is submitted that the agreement should have been allowed to remain in tact, so as try take effect after the final decision of the Settlement authorities in the matter of the evaluation price as payable by the transferees. We do not see any substance in these already narrated, it is abundantly clear that the evaluation price, as initially demanded by the Settlement authorities, had been paid in full by the transferees, and accordingly they were entitled to have the Permanent Transfer Deed in their favour. The creation of a fresh demand , after the lapse of nearly 11 years, and that too without any notice to the transferees was clearly without lawful authority. As a result, the action taken subsequent to this unlawful act must be set aside, and this would include the agreement of association into which some of the transferees were forced to enter as a result of illegal creation of the fresh demand. The agreement was also liable to be set aside for the additional reason that before its transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, one of the transferees had made an appli cation offering to pay the full approved price in terms of the amended Settle ment Scheme No. VIII. The learned Judge in the High Court has rightly observed that there was no justification ‑for the Deputy Settlement Com missioner to keep this application pending and to approve the agreement of association during its pendency. We are accordingly satisfied that The High Court was right in nullifying the agreement of association relied upon by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.