1984 PLP 1471 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment, dated 28‑4‑1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.315‑R of 1972. The following statement of facts will suffice for the order we propose to make in this Court. An evacuee property bearing No.S‑III‑3‑S‑7 situate in Kabir Street, Lahore was ordered to be disposed of through an open public auction. Mst. Zohra Bibi, Respondent No.4 herein, offered the highest bid of Rs.25,000 and was ordered to be transferred the shop after the confirmation of the bid by the Chairman, Auction Committee on 9‑4‑1963. However, although she did pay some part of the transfer price of the shop but did not pay its full price in accordance with the terms of the auction the same was accordingly cancelled and the property again put to auction which was purchased by the appellant for Rs.7,000 on 28‑4‑1969. He paid the full transfer price and obtained the P.T.D. He also got occupation of the shop by ejecting the occupant by taking proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Thereafter, it appears, he converted the property into two shops; one of it has been given to one Javed on rent, while one Iqbal has been inducted in the other. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 challenged the order of transfer of the shop in favour of the appellant before the Settlement authorities but was unsuccessful. She, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W.P. No.315‑R/1972), which was allowed by the order of a learned Single Judge passed on 28‑4‑1980 on the ground that under para.23 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the auction‑purchaser could pay the transfer price within three years, which provision had been overlooked by the Settlement Authorities. Accordingly, he declared the order passed by the Settlement authorities to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and restored the order of transfer of the shop in favour of Respondent No.4. Leave to appeal having been granted against the said order the parties have appeared before us today. After some arguments, the parties agreed to enter into a compromise with regard to their dispute. It was agreed that both the parties may be allowed to have one shop each as at present existing on the spot. It was also agreed that the shop occupied by Javed may be transferred to Mst. Zohra Bibi, Respondent No.4 herein, while the other shop, presently occupied by Iqbal, may be transferred in favour of the appellant herein. The Respondent No.4 will pay Rs.3,500, namely, the half of the transfer price to the appellant within one week from today. While Respondent No.4 may be allowed to obtain the amount paid by her towards the transfer price of the shop to the Settlement Department. We consider that this compromise is fair and a just solution of the dispute between the two auction‑purchasers and are inclined to accept it. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the Settlement authorities, as also that passed by the High Court and direct the Settlement authorities to issue fresh documents transferring one shop (presently occupied by Javed) in favour of Mst. Zohra Bibi, Respondent No.4 and the other shop (presently occupied by Iqbal) in favour of the appellant herein. The amount deposited by Respondent No.4 may be refunded in her favour. Muhammad Zahoor v. Musarraf Iqbal (M.S.H. Quraishi, J) The appeal shall be allowed in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. S. Q. Order accordingly.