1 979 S C M R 487 (PLP)

Sardar Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing : 19th June, 1979. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN J. The dispute in this case relates to house No. Q‑43 situated at Chowk Imam Bata, Rawalpindi. It was transferred 10 Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah a non‑claimant displaced parson by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 21‑5‑1960. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order held that Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah was an allottee since year 1947 and was the only applicant for this house. Later Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah associated with Sh. Habib Ullah predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 to 5 herein. 'The association was approved on 6‑2‑1964 and P. T. O. of the house was then issued to his Representatives by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 21‑9-1964 as in the meantime Sh. Habib Ullah had died. This was followed by P. T. D. in their favour dated 8‑7‑1965. It appears that, thereafter the respondents on 27‑8.1966 issued a notice to Inayat Ullah petitioner, who was in occupation of two rooms of this house under 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (XXVIII of 1958), intimating the factum of the transfer to them and also claiming the arrears of rent. This notice was duly received and later replied to by the petitioner on I5‑9‑1966 in which it was pleaded that in fact the house stood transferred to Iqbal Begum widow of Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah and ire that way the ownership of the associate herein before mentioned as denied. This led to the institution of an ejectment application against the petitioner on 4‑2‑1967. In the written statement dated 22‑4‑1967 filed in that case by the petitioner which was shown to us by the learned counsel for the respondents (caveators) again the factum of the transfer of the house to Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah was reiterated:

2. At that juncture after a lapse of about 7 years Inayatullah petitioner on 25‑5‑1967 filed an appeal challenging the basic order of transfer dated 21‑5‑1960 pleading that he too had filed an N C H form on 8‑8‑1959 which according to him had not yet been disposed of and its such without disposal of that form, the transfer of the house to the respon dents was illegal. The appeal was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 4‑4‑1968 and the case was remanded by him for fresh decision in accordance with law after attending to the form of the petitioner.

3. The respondents filed a revision but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 8‑2‑1969.

4. The respondents then filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 432.R/1969 which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by means of his judgment order dated 7‑2‑1975 on the ground that as the P. T. D. in this case has been issued much before the institution on of the appeal by the petitioner, the case could be reopened thereafter.

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

6. Learned counsel tried to argue that Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah was a local and the house being of the value of more than Rs. 10,000 the same could not have been transferred to him under the law relevant on the subject. When the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 21‑5‑1960 wherein he had held that Haji was a non‑claimant displaced person from India with reference to the relevant material relied upon by him in that respect, the learned counsel had no answer. The main attack which was thus being made by the petitioner against the entitlement of Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah on the ground of his being a local disappears and the transfer to Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah from that point of view remained quite valid and could not be taken exception to.

7. At this juncture the learned counsel then argued that his client had also filed an N C H form which had not been taken into consideration by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner and therefore the transfer to Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah without disposal of the form of the petitioner was illegal. We asked the learned counsel that assuming without conceding that the petitioner had in fact filed any such form on 8‑8‑1959 (because the finding of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner was that at the time when he passed the order there was no other applicant before him) the how he would have preference over Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdulla whose date of possession as mentioned in the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner was of year 1947. In this context we further asked as to what was the date of possession of the petitioner over the two rooms in his occupation and whether he was an allottee or a non‑allottee. All that the learned counsel in this respect (with reference to the person record) submitted was that his possession was of a time prior to yea: 1958 but he did not state that it was prior to the date of the possession of Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah. It may be mentioned that as a matter of fact there is no such pleading in any of the document on the record of the paper book showing that his possession was comparatively of a prior date) and if so how. In that view of the matter as held in Salahuddin Dar v. Abdul Hayee and others (1) Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah obviously stood better qualified for the transfer of the house and it appears that it was foci this reason that the petitioner did not seriously pursue the matter and filed an appeal after seven years from tide date of the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Again assuming without conceding that, petitioner had filed some form his conduct in not pursuing the same for at long period of seven years enough for the High Court to direct that the case should not be opened after such a late stage when in the meantime so many developments as mentioned earlier had duly taken place and the P. T. D had also been issued to the respondents. The bar of P. T. D. in reopening the case, as held by the learned Single Judge is therefore be understood in this context and in no other, because never intended to hold that mere issuance of a P. T. D. could destroy the right to appeal or revision against the basic transfer order in all cases. It appears that the petitioner by his conduct of "non‑pursuit" had not shown any seriousness for claiming this house but it was only the institution of an ejectment application against him on 4‑2‑1967, which enraged him to retaliate in the form of filing belated appeal after seven years in the transfer of the house. Even from the issue of section the appeal was belated by nine months or so. In this context therefore. the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that after the P. T. D. had been issued in favour of the respondents, this was not a fit case for reopening a matter which as we have pointed out above the petitioner himself had ins a way abandoned and not pursued and which aspect of abandonment, laches or "non‑pursuit" had been totally ignored by the settlement authorities in appeal/or revision and which constituted a serious defect in the exercise of their jurisdiction rendering the same to be :without lawful authority in view of the special features of this case. The order of the learned Singles Judge in the peculiar circumstances above highlighted does not suffer from violation of any principle of law warranting interference by this Court a especially when as observed earlier even on merits, alit petitioner had not, been able to establish any preferential right of transfer against Haji Sh. Muhammad Abdullah or his associates. It may be pointed out that in order to enable the petitioner to show anything to us in support of his preferential claim or possession we gave time to him and adjourned the case for some while, but the petitioner could not produce anything on the subject.

8. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.