1969 PLP 497 (SCMR)

In the order of the High Court the facts, as ascertained from an examination of the file before it, are stated as follows: The shop portion was transferred to the petitioner under P. T. O. dated the 6th December 1959 and the godown portion was transferred to him on the 17th May 1961, on a subsequent application, but without noticing that the godown portion had earlier, on the 26th March 1960, been transferred to Khuda Bakhsh on his application based on a C. S. Form dated the 19th March 1960. Accordingly when Khuda Bakhsh came to know of this transfer he appealed to the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the latter, setting aside the order, held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had acted in excess of his powers, but expressed the opinion that it could be transferred to the petitioner on negotiation basis if he applied for the same. The petitioner then went up to the Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the godown to him on negotiation basis but this request was turned down on the 5th March 1965, on the ground that the shop and the godown were separate units. The Settlement Commissioner, on examining the P. T. D. of the petitioner also found, that it contained certain interpolations. In the Settlement Commissioner's order it is also recorded that the petitioner had admitted before him that Khuda Bakhsh was in actual possession of the godown. Notwithstanding this order the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner again forwarded a recommendation to the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), Lahore, for the transfer of the godown to the petitioner on the ground that since a P. T. D. had already bean issued to him the transfer might be maintained. This recommendation was again turned down by the Settlement Commissioner on the 2nd May 1965, with a direction that the order of the Settlement Commissioner passed on the 5th March 1965, for the disposal of the godown by public auction should be given effect to forthwith. When the Settlement Scheme No. VIII came into force the respondent Abdul Aziz, the petitioner Nooruddin and his wife all three applied again for the transfer of the godown on the basis of possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 17th November 1966, transferred the godown to the petitioner, holding that Khuda Bakhsh and his son Abdul Aziz were not in possession of it as they had executed tenancy agreements in favour of the petitioner Nooruddin. On appeal, however, the Additional Settlement Commissioner took the view that neither party was entitled to the transfer of the godown as this question had been already decided by a Settlement Commissioner on the 5th March 1965. On revision the Settlement Commissioner, after exhaustively reviewing the facts relating to the transfer of the godown, held that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on the 17th November 1966, purporting to transfer the godown to Nooruddin should be set aside as the godown was not a part and parcel of the Shop No. B‑2268, already transferred to the petitioner Nooruddin, Nooruddin was not in possession of the godown as had been found by the Settlement Commis sioner on the 5th March 1965, and the P. T. D. produced could not be relied upon as it contained interpolations which appeared to have been introduced subsequently. In this Court also the view was taken that since the Settlement authorities had decided the godown was not a part and parcel of the shop transferred to the petitioner, it could not be given to the petitioner. The admission of the petitioner himself that Khuda Bakhsh, father of the respondent Abdul Aziz, was in possession of the said godown also disentitled him to it. This fact also appeared to be confirmed by the interpolations found by the Settlement Commissioner in the P. T. D. itself. There could be no necessity of the said interpolations if the godown had already been transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner has again in review sought to reiterate before us that the original P. T. D. would clearly show that both the shop as well as the godown were transferred to him as both the numbers were mentioned in the P. T. D. This was also sought to be supported upon the extracts of the Register C. S. C‑5 showing that two properties had been transferred to the petitioner. Extracts from the Property Register Card (Ward B), Sukkur, would also, it was contended, support this claim. Certified copies of challans of the Excise and Taxation Department have also been produced to show that the petitioner had been paying urban immovable property tax in respect of the Properties Nos. B/2268 and 2269 from 1965‑66 to 1968‑

69. In the circumstances it is urged that the Court had fallen into error in taking the view that the Godown No. B/2269 was not transferred to the petitioner. We have examined the original P. T. D. produced before us. It appears that the letter 's' has been added to the word `shop' at each place where the said word occurred. This addition is clearly in a different pen and a different ink, but the alteration has been made so crudely that the verb in the sentence is left unchanged. Thus the P. T. D. now with the interpolations reads as follows: "The shops has been transferred". Obviously, this is grammatically incorrect. If indeed more than one shop or the shop as well as the godown had been transferred to the petitioner, the P. T. D. would have recited that the "shops have been transferred." Since this has not been done and the addition of the letter `s' is in different ink, we are in agreement with the Settlement Commissioner that these have been interpolated in the P. T. D. although the number of the property mentioned is "2268‑69". Even this `69' could well be an addition although it appears to be in the same ink. The contention of the petitioner that the godown was also originally transferred to him along with the shop as a composite unit cannot also be accepted, because, if it had been so transferred there would have been no necessity for the petitioner to again apply for the transfer of the godown when Scheme No. VIII came into operation. The petitioner has placed strong reliance on the fact that the respondent Abdul Aziz and his father had executed rent agreements in his favour but he forgets that this was done at a time when there was a transfer order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, giving him both the shop and the godown, in his favour. This order was set aside when it was found that the godown had been transferred to Khuda Bakhsh much earlier, on the 26th March 1960. Thus it appears to us that the claim of the petitioner that none of the Courts had applied their judicial mind to the facts of his case is not only wholly incorrect but also mischievous. The petitioner's conduct is, by no means, above board, and we take a very serious view of the interpolations made in the P. T. D. This clearly proves the falsity of the contention of the petitioner. There is no reason, whatsoever, for consideration of the order of this Court. Hence this petition for review is dismissed. The original P. T. D. filed before us is, however, taken into custody. It should be kept by the Registrar under sealed cover and sent to the Chief Settlement Commissioner after being initialled by the Court, for holding a proper enquiry as to the circumstances in which and the persons by whom the interpolations came to be made and then taking appropriate action against the person/persons found responsible for making the interpolations. The Chief Settlement Commissioner will also report to this Court the result of his enquiry and the action taken by him. Petition dismissed.