1990 PLP 855 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑Mst. Nafisa Begum was transferred on her C.H. form House No.SW‑III‑70S‑8, Krishan Nagar, (now called Islampura), Lahore. A.P.T.O. was issued in her favour on 21st January, 1960.

2. One of her sons Ijaz Ahmad filed an appeal claiming that he was entitled to the house as an allottee and that his CH form had not been considered. The appeal was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 13‑6‑1960, whereby it was directed that "his name be also added in the P.T.O. already issued in the name of Mst. Nafisa Begum". After seven years, Mst. Nafisa Begum filed a revision petition on 23‑10‑1967. The Settlement Commissioner held that "no cogent ground has been put forth for condoning such a long delay. The only point which has been stressed is as to what share of price should be paid by Ijaz Ahmad in respect of the joint transfer of the property. This could very well be ascertained from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. I do not see any reasonable ground to entertain such a badly delayed revision. Accordingly it is rejected in limine". This is vide order dated 29‑5‑1972.

3. On the application of Ijaz Ahmad for the apportionment of the share, the Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to decide the matter who vide his order dated 25‑4‑1973 determined that the share of Mst. Nafisa Begum and Ijaz Ahmad, the only transferees of the property, shall be according to the amount of deferred payment in their respective compensation books and demand notices for recovery of the transfer price should be issued to them. Mst. Nafisa challenged the order by means of a revision petition and prayed that "the property should be transferred to all the five sons and the mother against the verified claim". The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, Lahore vide order dated 17‑4‑19'

76. Mst. Nafisa Begum filed writ petition No.834‑R of 1976. During the pendency thereof she having died, her five sons and daughter were impleaded as a party. Ijaz Ahmad who had been transferred the house along with his mother Mst. Nafisa Begum was cited as respondent No.4, and‑ he having died his heirs were also brought on record.

4. In the writ petition it was contended that respondent No.4 Ijaz Ahmad who had been joined in the transfer as mentioned above should not have been joined as he has filed no CH form. The contention was rejected on the ground that not only that was being taken for the first time but the order of joint transfer in favour of Mst. Nafisa Begum and Ijaz Ahmad passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 21‑6‑1960 against which a revision petition was filed after seven years had been dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 17‑11‑1967. It became final between the parties. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed vide order dated 25‑11‑.1985. Hence this petition.

5. Since the dispute was between the mother and her son or sons and their heirs, parties were given many opportunities to compose their differences but to no avail. The contention of the learned counsel who appears in support of the petition filed in the name of Mst. Nafisa Begum as represented by, twp of her sons, is that the joint transfer in the name of Mst. Nafisa Begum and Ijaz Ahmad by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 13‑6‑1960 be set aside and the transfer in favour of Mst. Nafisa Begum for which she was issued P.T.O. on 21‑1‑1960 be restored. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the heirs of Ijaz Ahmad is that the latter was an allottee of. the house and on his appeal that his CH form had not been considered, the Additional Settlement Commissioner had ordered the transfer of the house in the joint names of Mst. Nafisa Begum and Ijaz Ahmad, and P.T.O. was ordered to be amended accordingly vide order dated 13‑6‑1960. This was not challenged for seven years and when the revision petition was tiled it was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 17‑11‑1967. The apportionment of the transfer price was fixed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 25‑4‑1973, and the order has been upheld by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 17‑4‑1976. There is no error of law calling for any interference.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is no merit in this petition as the house has been transferred to Mst. Nafisa Begum and Ijaz Ahmad on their respective CH forms by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 13‑6‑1960. The order was not challenged until a revision petition was filed seven years later which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 17‑11‑1967. The transfer in their favour has thus attained finality.

7. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A.A./N‑238/S Petition dismissed.