1972 PLP 669 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑Bungalow No. 4,13/3), situated on Domeli Road, Peshawar, was transferred to Hamidullah (appellant No. 2) on the 9th of October 1959, on an N. C. H. form as a non‑claimant displaced person. Pursuant thereto, Appendix IX was issued to him on the 2nd of November 1959, requiring him to pay the transfer price of Rs. 13,800 plus the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,010 and Rs. 69 on account of settlement fee within 30 days, failing which his right to the transfer of the bun galow would be deemed to be extinguished. Hamidullah did not make the payment within the specified period, and a notice was issued to him on the 12th of February 1966, to make the payment within a further period of 30 days, otherwise the Appendix IX issued to him would stand cancelled, and he would be liable to ejectment from the bungalow. Hamidullah did not comply with this notice, and instead moved an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, asking for permission of the Settlement authorities to associate with himself Captain Saeed Gul Badshah (appellant No. 1 here in), in lieu of transfer to him of a portion of the bungalow (5,142 sq. feet out of a total of 9,280 sq. feet), undertaking to pay the entire price and the public dues by the 21st of March 1966. This application was rejected by the Settlement authorities on the ground that Hamidullah's right to the transfer of the property in question was extinguished on his failure to pay the transfer price within 30 days of the issuance of Appendix IX to him. It was held that his agreement of association with Captain Saeed Gul Badshah, and parting with a portion of the bungalow in his favour, being untenable in law, could not be approved. It was observed that Hamidullah had been declared an insolvent by an insolvency Court and his inability to pay the transfer price was obvious. The appellants challenged the decision of the Settle ment authorities by a writ petition in the High Court (Peshawar), which has been dismissed, leading to this appeal by special leave. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that on the 3rd of September 1966, the Chief Settlement Commissioner bad issued a press note (copy Annexure `C'), which stated that in order to facilitate payment of the transfer price by the transferees of evacuee properties, the Central Government had extended the time limit up to the 31st of December 1966 for utilization of Compensation/ Rehabilitation Books through association in the manner prescribed in the press note dated the 2nd of March 1966. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted teat the appellants, who had entered into an association, having offered to make the payment long before the extended date, viz., 31st of December 1966, the concession granted by the Central Govern ment was wrongly withheld from them. The argument employed by the learned counsel was that this press note secured a right to the appellant No. 2 to associate with himself appellant No. 1 for payment of the transfer price and the public dues, and to make reliance is placed is to the following effect:‑ "In the press notes dated the 4th of February 1966, and the 2nd of March 1966, issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the transferees of properties were allowed to utilize compensation/Rehabilitation Books through association for payment of 75 % of the amount outstanding against them provided they pay at least 25 % of such outstanding amount in cash in the first instance. This concession could be availed of by them up to the 30th of June 1966. The Central Government have now decided that in order to facilitate payment of the transfer price/auction price by the transferees of properties a last chance may be given to them for utilizing the compensation/rehabilitation books through association m the manner prescribed in the press note dated the 2nd of March 1966, for a further period of six months ending 31st of December 1966, where after there would be no extension of this concession. The transferees and auction‑purchasers of properties, against whom any amounts of the transfer or auction price are out standing, are advised in their own interest to avail of this last opportunity granted by the Central Government up to the 31st December 1966." It is clear from this press note that the Central Government had granted extension of time as a concession ex gratis and it has to be read within its bounds. One pre‑requisite of this concession was that it applied to persons who had paid at least 25 of the outstanding amount in cash. The appellant had admittedly not satisfied this requirement, not having made any cash payment towards the transfer price. However, the appellants' case fails on a more vital aspect. In the press note cited above, the time‑limit was extended by the Central Government to facilitate payment of the transfer price by the transferees by utilization of Compensation/Rehabilitation books through association. These Compensation/Rehabilitation books were held only by the claimants. What was, therefore, in tended was that a transferee, be he a claimant, non‑claimant or a local, could associate with himself a claimant only who held the compensation books for utilization of the same for payment of the transfer price, and not the reverse. It was clearly not intended that a local or a non‑claimant, who did not possess any Compen sation/Rehabilitation books could be associated by the transferees of the properties for the purpose of payment of its price. This is also clear from the press note dated the 13th of February 1960, issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the approval of the Central Government, laying down the detailed procedure for regulating such associations, as printed at page 115 of the Old Settlement Manual. The relevant portion of this press note reads as follows : "A claimant, non‑claimant displaced person or a local to whom any property has been transferred or who is found entitled to the transfer of any property and who is unable to pay the amount dug from him in cash, may associate and claimant for payment of the transfer price and make him a shareholder in the ownership of the property transferred to him. He may, if he so desires surrender his rights completely in favour of the associating claimant in which case the claimant so associated will become full owner of the property." It is clear that in the present case Captain Saeed Gul Badshah, who was a local, wanted to associate with himself appellant No. 2, who was the transferee of the property as a non‑claimant displaced person, and neither of them being a claimant in possession of compensation books, could enter into an association and neither could take advantage of the concession of the extended time granted by the Central Government for payment of the transfer price. What the appellants really wanted in this case was that Captain Saeed Gul Badhshah, who was a local, should be per mitted to buy a portion of the bungalow from appellant No. 2, who had been transferred the house, on payment of its entire) price by the former, which was due from the latter. This seem to us to be wholly against the spirit of association, as envisaged to the Settlement Scheme and the relevant press notes. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.