1986 PLP 418 (MLD)
KALOO KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 418 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | KALOO KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 418 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVII of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 418 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 418 (MLD) (KALOO KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Anwar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.10‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Permanently transferred‑‑Orders of resumption and auction after such transfer‑‑Legality‑‑Evidence on record clearly showed that property in dispute was validly transferred to petitioner‑‑Petitioner surrendered his entire rights of ownership in favour of another petitioner through deed of association‑‑Association deed was allowed by Settlement Authorities and other petitioner paid entire transfer price of property‑‑Settlement Authorities without informing other petitioners cancelled transfer in favour of first petitioner on, pretext of non‑payment of transfer price‑‑Settlement Authorities resumed that property and transferred to respondent through auction‑ Orders of Settlement Authorities in respect of resumption of property and sale through auction, held, suffered from patent illegality in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Anwar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1985. This constitutional petition is directed against order, dated 22‑7‑1967 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore whereby he resumed shop in dispute transferred in favour of petitioner No.1 and thereafter disposed of through auction.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that Shop No.130‑R‑110, Shahdara, Lahore was transferred in favour of petitioner No.1 on 1‑3‑1960 and P.T.O. was issued in his favour. The petitioner No.1 associated with petitioner No.2 whereby he surrendered his entire rights of ownership of the disputed shop in favour of petitioner No.2. The association deed was allowed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner No.2 paid the entire transfer price amounting to Rs.485.50 in cash through challan, dated 7‑7‑1967. The petitioner No.2 applied for issuance of permanent transfer deed, whereupon he was informed on 7‑12‑1976 that the shop in dispute had been auctioned and permanent transfer deed was issued in favour of respondent No.
1. On file inspection the petitioner came to learn that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 22‑7‑1967 cancelled the transfer order in favour of petitioner No. 1 in respect of disputed shop and sold the same through auction on 28‑6‑1971 for Rs.500 in favour of respondent No.
1. He moved an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the order of resumption as he had already paid the entire price before the property in dispute was resumed. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not cancel the transfer order of the disputed shop in favour of respondent No. l and vide his order, dated 11‑12‑1976 directed the petitioner No.2 to seek judicial remedy in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had already paid transfer price which is apparent from the challan receipt, dated 7‑7‑1967 and from the report made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30‑11‑1976. The order of cancellation of the transfer of the disputed shop and sale through auction was uncalled for.
4. No one has appeared to contest this petition. The relevant documents on the record clearly show that the petitioner' had already paid price of the disputed shop on 7‑7‑1967 as such the resumption of the property on 22‑7‑1967 for non‑payment of the transfer price was not warranted under the law. It further appears that the petitioners were not associated with the proceedings and the action taken in that behalf by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially for resumption of the property and thereafter sale through public auction suffered from patent illegality.
5. In this view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby declared to be of no legal effect and are set aside. In the result this petition is accepted Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest this petition, there shall be no order as to costs. H . B . T . Petition accepted.