1988 PLP 1013 (CLC)

The private parties to this petition are contesting the transfer of property No. SI‑72‑S‑32, Gowalmandi, Lahore. The case of the petitioner is that as the property was available under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, the same should have been transferred to him, against the application /form submitted by him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, vide his impugned order dated 16th November, 1978, transferred the same to respondent No. 3 by withdrawing the cancellation and resumption orders passed, previously.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the property in question is said to have been transferred to respondent No.3 on 10th May, 1960; by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He, however, failed to pay the transfer price. Consequently, a notice dated 27th July, 1970, under para. 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and Part II, Chapter III Settlement Scheme No. VIII, was issued to him. It was stated therein that he had failed to pay a sum of Rs.9,600 within 30 days and if he again failed to pay the same sum within 30 days, from the date of receipt of the notice, he will be liable to ejectment, the Provisional Transfer Order issued in his name would be cancelled and the amount already paid by him will also be forfeited.

3. Another order dated 15th September was then passed by, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on a report, resuming the property. The notice of resumption was sent on 17th September, 1970. The respondent, it appears from the record', did not take any further action till 1978 when he made the application dated 26th August, 1978 (Annexure 'C') for the restoration of the property as said above. 4., The contention of the learned counsel is that the respondent never submitted any form and the property in question had never been transferred to him. According to him, the form No. 6998 had been submitted by one Muhammad Tufail son of Abdul Ghani for Property No. S‑1‑

79. S‑32 which had in ‑fact been transferred to him. He further states that the said 'Muhammad Tufail was a claimant, whereas the respondent is a non‑claimant. In this view of the matter, it is argued that there being no form by the respondent, there could be no transfer order and hence the question of resumption of the property did not arise.

5. The question, whether a property had been transferred or not to respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, can be best confirmed from either entries of the application form in the relevant register or the transfer of the property in the CSC‑IV register. Further, the register meant for the resumption of the properties may also be of help. I, therefore, sent for the relevant registers. The CSC‑IV register No.10, at its page 148, corrected later to page 145, shows that the property S‑I‑72‑S‑32 was owned by Perlad son of Galnesh Singh. It was transferred to Muhammad Tufail son of Lal Din, Gowalmandi, Lahore, against his form NCH LHR‑III‑1776, for a sum of Rs.7,

958. In one of the other registers, property No.72‑S‑32 at serial No. 1514 had been transferred to one Muhammad Tufail, against CH‑6998 on 10th May, 1970. It refers to page

148. The resumed properties register also shows that prdperty No. S‑I‑72‑S‑32 had been resumed on 17th September, 1970, vide entry at serial' No.863.

6. The number of property S‑I‑72‑S‑32 in register CSC‑IV, the name of the transferee Muhammad Tufail and the original price Rs.9,600 are not doubtful. The other entries appear to be of a later date. Similarly, the entry at serial No. 1514 may also be of a later date. The entries in the resumed properties register are not doubtful. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the property in question had been transferred to Muhammad Tufail. There is, however, a discrepancy about the number of .the form and the price. 7." The entries in the resumption register made in 1970, however, leave no manner of doubt that the property SI‑72‑S‑32 had been transferred to Muhammad Tufail. This is supported by the three notices at pages 31, 33 and 35 of the file, about the proceedings of the resumption. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand has no support from the record. The E mere fact that wrong number of the form and wrong price was recorded against property SI‑72‑S‑32 should not mean that some other property and not the one in dispute was transferred. The net result is that Property No. SI‑72‑S‑32, had in fact been transferred to Muhammad Tefail respondent and had, as a matter of fact, been resumed in the year 1970.

8. Consequently, after it was restored vide the impugned order, to its original transferee, no other property was available to transfer the same to the petitioner under a different scheme made on a later date. So no revision petition was entertainable as the proceedings would be deemed to have been taken by a notified officer under Evacuee Properties Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./A‑273/L Petition dismissed,.