1982 PLP 1842 (CLC)

S. A. MAHMOOD, J.

‑The property in dispute bears No. S.E. VI. R. 67‑69 and S.E VI. 29‑S‑24 (Khasra Nos. 1045 to 1046) situate at Mayo Road, Garhi Shahu, Lahore. The petitioner's case is that the property was originally owned by Narotam Lal and Msr. Tara Devi evacuees and Mr. Yusuf Sethi his wife Mst. Sakina Bibi, Mr. Saeed and non‑Muslim Home through Mr. Yusaf Sethi acquired 5/14th share‑by an agreement on the 1st of March, 1947 and a sale‑deed which was registered on the 17th of July, 1947. The. consideration was paid to the evacuees before the Sub‑Registrar. Subsequently Mr. Abdul Hamid petitioner acquired 5i14th share in this property from. Mr. Yusaf Sethi, etc., by a registered sale‑deed of the 5th July, 1955. . He moved the Tehsildar for sanctioning the mutation in his name in the revenue records but he declined. On 3rd March, 1959, he directed the petitioner to produce a no objection certificate and he made an application to the Deputy Custodian in August, 1959, under section 21 of Act X11 of (957 for obtaining a no objection certificate. The Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, rejected the application as being barred by time, as the execution of sale‑deed by the evacuees was on 17th July, 1947 and the application had to be made within 60 days of the promulgation of the Rules, which were gazetted on 25th August, 1950. He found the application to be hopelessly barred by time. The petitioner appealed to the learned Custodian of Evacuee Property. He dismissed the appeal on 13th November, 1959, agreeing with the Deputy Custodian that the application .was hopelessly barred by time. The application was made 12 years after the registration of the sale‑deed on 17th July, 1947, and the last date for filing of the petition was 24th October, 1950. He thus found that there was a delay in filing the application of about 9 years for which no satisfactory explanation had been furnished. The petitioner moved a review application but it was summarily dismissed without issuing notice to the petitioner, who then moved this Court under clause 2 (4) of the Law (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, to quash the orders of the .Custodian and that Deputy Cus todian, as being illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the original vendees paid full consideration to the evacuees and as the present petitioner obtained transfer of the vendee's rights from Muslims the learned Custodian should not have thrown out the application on the technicality of limitation, especially when it came to the petitioner's knowledge during the mutation proceedings that it was necessary for him to obtain the approval of the Custodian for the sale of the property, as being evacuee. We have full sympathy with the petitioner and who the sale was for consideration in favour of a Muslim the same may well have been approved by the Custodian, but as this is a case of refusal to extend time in the exercise of his discretion by the Custodian, we have no power to interfere with his order refusing to grant relief under section 21 of Act XII of 1957. We, therefore, dismiss this petition, but make no order as to costs. M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.