1987 PLP 993 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 20th January, 1987. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The parties in this case have been litigating on a piece of property known as Kuckreja Sports Limited, which was sold in auction to the petitioner as an industrial concern. The building, in which the industrial concern was located, comprised of two parts one of which was double‑storeyed. The double‑storeyed building "except two rooms" was not included in the auction. This building (except the two rooms on the ground floor) was in possession of the respondent and was therefore transferred to him. The petitioner society moved an application to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries) claiming that the portion in possession of the respondent formed part of the industrial concern and as such it should also be transferred to it. By an order dated 28‑10‑1960 the application was accepted. The society paid the price and P.T.D. was issued in petitioner's favour. The respondent went up in appeal to the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) challenging the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the extent that portion in possession of Kh. Muhammad lqbal respondent be transferred to him (i.e. the respondent) meaning thereby that two‑storeyed building (excepting the two rooms not in possession of the respondent) be transferred to him. So far the respondent is concerned this order became final as no appeal or revision was filed against it. This order became final even vide Lahore High Court Order, dated 31‑3‑1970. But while the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) dated 6‑12‑1960 was sub judice, the respondent obtained a P.T.O. (page 143‑144) on 24‑4‑1961 from Settlement Department showing that whole of the double‑storeyed building, including two rooms, forming part of the portion earlier transferred to the petitioner vide order dated 6‑12‑1960, was transferred to the respondent on the basis of contents of the P.T.O. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 15‑8‑1979 (Page 145) for correction of the P.T.O. This was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 27‑4‑1960 and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was directed to amend the P.T.O. and make it consistent with the final order dated 6‑12‑1960. Against this order the respondent filed Writ Petition No.60 of 1983 on 24‑2‑1983 which was accepted on 2‑11‑1985. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court had itself observed at page 5 of the impugned judgment that: "Transfer documents have to conform to the contents of the transfer order finally made." He pointed out that the final order is the one made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Industries) on 6‑12‑1960, but the P.T.O. prepared by the Department was contrary to that order. As such the High Court had erred in not ordering rectification of the mistake in the P.T.O.

3. The question needs consideration. Let notice be issued to the contesting respondent as well as the counsel for the Settlement Department. 4 To come up on 7‑3‑1987. Status quo in the meanwhile. S.Q./P‑8/S Order accordingly.