1991 PLP 448 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The dispute is about a shop situated inside Bhati Gate, Lahore. It has been transferred by the Settlement Department to Muhammad Iqbal, respondent Nu.3 and Muhammad Khalil the petitioner herein, feels dissatisfied thereby. We find that the property was inspected by Mir Iftikhar Ali, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Central‑III, Lahore, who also heard the parties and in his order dated 13‑7‑1970 observed as follows:‑ "I heard the arguments of both the parties, perused the record and even inspected the site in the presence of both the parties. On the spot persons of the whole locality stated that the shop in question was originally in occupation of Muhammad Iqbal, who had been letting out the same to various tenants from time to time. They also filed an affidavit and gave a joint statement as well. From the statement of the persons living in the locality, it is established that Muhammad Khalil who is present occupant of the shop is merely a licensee. They also said that Muhammad Khalil is not running the shop but actually speaking he is a Rakhsha driver. Beside this, Muhammad Iqbal tendered electric bills issued in his name for the shop. The meter stands installed in the shop in the name of S.L, Bhat‑Nagar, father: of Muhammad Iqbal. He has also produced the receipts of payment of rent to Reh. Department, from which it appears that the shop was in his possession from 1954 to 1957. In rebuttal counsel for Muhammad Khalil has filed an affidavit to the effect that he is in possession of the shop since 1958. The Thara Tax was also paid by him from 1959 to 1.969 vide Annexure "A". From the above, it is quite evident that Muhammad Khalil occupied the shop in April, 1959 and, therefore, he is not entitled for its transfer because his possession is after the crucial date of 20‑12‑1958. So far as the case of Muhammad Iqbal is concerned, it has been established that his possession on the shop is with effect from 1954 onwards." Accordingly, he recommended to the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner that order in favour of Muhammad Iqbal inter alia for transferring the shop may be passed. On the basis of this recommendation, the transfer order was passed by the relevant Settlement Authorities and these orders have been upheld by the High Court which has dismissed the writ petition filed against them by Muhammad Khalil. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have heard Mr. M. Maqbul Sadiq, learned counsel for the petitioner and agree that Muhammad Khalil could not be considered to be in "possession" of the shop in dispute within the meaning of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act and, therefore, could not legitimately object to the transfer of the shop in favour of Muhammad Iqbal respondent. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby. A.A./M‑1298/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.