1985 PLP 140 (SCMR)

Art. 185(3)--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10--Dispute of property between parties, each seeking protection of his transfer under settlement law--High Court deciding dispute in favour of prior transferees on C.H. Forms--Fact admitted that respondents were transferees of property since 1959 which petitioners claimed to have obtained in auction held several years later- Prior disposal of property would have to be given preference over subsequent auction--Property in possession of respondents and transferred to them on their C.H. Forms was not available for auction- Auction of such property to be treated as without lawful authority--Leave to appeal refused in circumstances. Muhammad Rafiq Chouhan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 16th August, 1984. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions arise out of the same case; therefore they are being disposed of together. Muhammad Nawaz Khan and others, successors-in-interest of one Muhammad Nawaz an auction-purchaser, have called in question in these two petitions judgment dated 18-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby on the respondent's writ petition with regard to a dispute about the identity of the urban evacuee property transferred to them on their C.H. forms, was resolved in their favour. The respondents admittedly are transferees on C.H. forms of an evacuee property since December 1959. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the said transfer. A P. T. D. was also issued in their favour. The property number mentioned in the P.T.D. is

392. Subsequently during an auction proceedings the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners was transferred an evacuee property with purported number as

397. It was discovered that the property purchased by Muhammad Nawaz in reality was the same, which had earlier been transferred to the respondents. After some rounds of litigation betweens the parties each seeking the protection of his transfer under the Settlement Law the High Court by the order impugned in these petitions resolved it in favour of the respondents holding them as prior transferees on C.H. forms. That being so the petitioners have sought leave to appeal. It is not disputed that the respondents are the transferees of the property since 1959, which the petitioners claim to have obtained in an auction held several years later. The prior disposal of the property will obviously have to be given preference over the subsequent auction. The property in possession of the respondents and transferred to them on their C.H. forms was not available for auction. Therefore if it is the same property, which was purchased by the petitioners' predeces sors-in-interest through auction, they would not succeeded as the auction would have to be treated as without lawful authority. If however they purchased a different property which was not in possession of the respondents nor was it transferred to them then they, as has been observed by the High Court, are entitled to discover that property and we may add, might obtain relief in that behalf. They cannot, as has rightly been held by the High Court, succeed against the respondents, regarding the property transferred to the latter. With these observations these petitions are dismissed as without force. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.