1972 PLP 293 (SCMR)

Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th July 1972. JUDGMENT, SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑In this petition for special leave, the dispute relates to bungalow No. 51, Ferozepur Road, Lahore, which, after a chequered litigation in the Settlement department, was finally transferred in favour of the respondent, Mst. Shahzadi Begum, by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 28th of October 1962. According to the findings of the Settlement Commissioner, the bungalow was first allotted to Dr. Baloch ' in 1948, and after his death, to his wife, the respondent, on the 28th of June 1954, and has remained in her possession throughout. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that Mst. Shahzadi Begum was a non‑claimant displaced person, and being the allottee in possession, she was entitled to the transfer of the house. The petitioner was able to get the allotment of the bungalow in his favour on the 8th of May 1958 on his representation that he was a claimant without a house, and that the bungalow in dispute was in occupation of unauthorised persons. Thereafter he started ejectment proceedings against the respondent, which were subsequently dropped by him on the 1st of August 1969. The petitioner also pressed into service the notification dated the 9th of September 1960, for his entitlement to this house. The learned Settlement Commissioner has held that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of that notification, firstly, because he had not filed a regular petition for the transfer of the house after the date of that notification, and, further, no ejectment proceedings were pending for his benefit in respect of this house on the 11th of August 1960, as required by the notification. In fact, the petitioner had himself dropped the ejectment proceedings against the respondent from this house on the 1st of August 1969, in the Court of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed it on the short ground that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was obviously void, having been made without the prior cancellation of the allotment existing in favour of the respondent and without any notice to her in accordance with section 7 (2) (b) of the Pakistan Rehabilita tion Act of 1959. However, the learned Single Judge came to the further conclusion that the respondent was also not entitled to the transfer of the house, as she was not a displaced person. He came to the conclusion that the bungalow was still an available property for transfer within the meaning of para. 1 (5) of the Settlement Scheme No. VIII, and was liable to be disposed of in the manner as prescribed in Chapter 3 of that scheme. Both sides went in Letters Patent appeal in the High Court. The appeal of the respondent was accepted but that of the petitioner was dismissed, which has led to this petition for special leave to appeal. The learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench have held that since the petitioner was found not to be entitled to the transfer of the house in question, he did not have any locus stand to challenge the transfer in favour of the respondent. They have further held that on facts, the Settlement Commissioner was right in holding that Mst. Shahzadi Begum was a displaced person and the interference in this finding on the part of the learned Single Judge in the High Court in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted; as the finding of the Settlement Commissioner was well‑ base on facts and was in accordance with law. We consider that the decision of the Letters Patent Bench is unexceptionable, and no interference is called for by us. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.