1985 PLP 1648 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this case is about a portion known as "D" (hereinafter called as "house")‑‑of property bearing No. S. 36‑R‑50 situated on Railway Road, Lahore which was transferred to Jalal‑ud‑Din, a claimant displaced person (now represented by his legal representatives) on his C.H. form. However, as he did not pay the price, the transfer of the house was cancelled from his name and during the pendency of the litigation which consequently ensued it was auctioned in favour of the present petitioner. It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the litigation through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for our purpose to state that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeal of Jalal‑ud‑Din on 4‑4‑1973 directed isuance of afresh notice of demand to the transferee before cancelling his transfer.

2. The present petitioner who had in the meantime, as above mentioned, purchased the house in auction, filed a revision, which was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner, who on 7‑1‑1974 reversed the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 4‑4‑1973 and maintained the auction in favour of the petitioner.

3. Jalal‑ud‑Din filed d constitutional petition being W.P. 133‑R/74 which was accepted by the High Court vide its judgment and order, dated 9‑12‑1976, whereby the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner was declared to be without lawful authority on the ground that as no valid notice was issued or to be more precise served on the transferee Jalal‑ud‑Din, therefore, consequent cancellation of transfer from his name was of no legal effect.

4. The petitioner auction‑purchaser has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the High Court that the notice had not been properly served on the transferee Jalal‑ud‑Din is not correct. The contention has no merit. The point raised is essentially of a factual nature and the order of the High Court on the subject which is based on the proper material and sound reasons cannot be taken exception to before us, as it has not been pointed out to suffer from any omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law on the subject. Another finding recorded by the High Court was that the auction in favour of the petitioner had taken place on 27‑7‑1971 in violation of the then operative order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner before whom the case of the respondent/transferee was pending and in these circumstances, the petitioner had no equities in his favour, because, he jumped into the field pending litigation of the original transferee. Learned counsel could not find any error even with regard to this view and finding of the High Court. Obviously as the petitioner had purchased the property pending litigation his entitlement will be regulated with. The ultimate result of that litigation and if in the ultimate analysis the transfer in the name of Jalal‑ud‑Din has been maintained the entitlement of the petitioner falls through.

8. From what has been stated above it is obvious that the order of the High Court suffers from no infirmity and in our opinion even otherwise is substantially just and fair because it maintained the transfer in favour of a claimant displaced persons who had been living in this house and had rightly been settled therein. The petition is dismissed hereby. A . A. Leave petition dismissed.