1984 PLP 894 (CLC)

Letters Patent (Karachi) ‑‑ Cl. 10‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Chap. VI‑Entirely extraneous ground Letters Patent Appeal on‑House (transferred in favour of appel lant) cancelled for non‑payment of balance of transfer price within time‑Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeal restoring transfer documents on condition of payment of balance .transfer price within one week‑Appellant not challenging order (qua con dition)‑Transfer again cancelled for non‑payment of balance of transfer price‑Appeal, revision, writ petition all failing‑Appellant contending initial cancellation order void and all subsequent orders passed on its basis also void and Additional Settlement Commis sioner's order of restoration of transfer documents on condition also bad‑Held, appellant cannot take plea, order bad in law or passed without jurisdiction‑Held further, subsequent cancellation of transfer proceeded entirely on Additional Settlement Commis sioner's order. Date of bearing.: 5th April, 1983, SAEEDUZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, dated 5th October, 1971 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. We may state here in short the facts which are relevant for this appeal. The appellant was transferred a house bearing No. AJ622 Tando Wali Muhammad Hyderabad against his N. C. H. form. The appellant was issued Appendix 9, dated 9th November, 1959 in the sum of Rs.4,

140. On 12th January, 1963 the appellant was called upon through a notice issued by the local Settlement Authorities to pay the transfer price with in a week of receipt of the notice failing which it was threatened that the case would be consigned to the record. It appears that after about a week of the issuance of the above notice the transfer in favour of appellant was cancelled on 7th February, 1963 and the property was transferred to respondent No. 4 on 18th February, 1963, who later on surrendered the same through an agreement of association in favour of respondent No.

5. It further appears that in spite of transfer having been cancelled in favour of the appellant, the Settlement Department accepted adjust ment of the part of transfer price from the appellant on 27th February, 1963 through compensation book. However, on 15th January, 1965 the appellant was informed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area that the transfer of property in his favour was already cancelled on 7th Februery, 1963 and that the same was transferred to respondent No. 4 on 18th February, 1963. The appellant claimed that he came to know about the cancellation of the transfer in his favour only when he received the intimation from Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He accordingly preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Com missioner against the order, dated 7th February, 1963 cancelling the transfer of property from his name. Although this appeal was highly belated, yet the Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the same on compassionate ground with the following observations :‑ , . "I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is barred by time and the transfers. However, since the appellant is also a displaced person and had applied in N.C. H. Form in time and his application, dated 25th January, 1963 for allowing two months time, had not been disposed of, I am of the view that his case also merits sympathetic consideration. I, therefore, take a lenient view and allow the appeal on com passionate grounds and cancel the transfer documents of the said house in favour of the respondent. The appellant's transfer documents are restored and he is directed to pay the balance of the transfer price within a week failing which the transfer in hi favour would be treated as cancelled and the transfer in favour of the respondent restored." This order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was passed on 9th March, 11965 and in terms of the order the appellant was required to pay transfer price within one week of the order. It is an admitted position that the transfer price was not paid as directed in the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner but was deposited on 1st April, 1965. Since the payment of transfer price was not in accordance with the direction of Additional Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner intimated the appellant that the property stood cancelled from name on account of non‑payment of the transfer price as directed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 9tb March, s

965. The appellant challenged the order of Deputy Settlement Commis sioner intimating the cancellation of the transfer in his favour unsuccess fully before the Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeal and thereafter in revision before the Settlement Commissioner. Thereafter the appellant filed a Constitutional Petition before the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan at Karachi, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that Court. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant contended that the order, dated 9th March, 1965 was not communicated to him and, therefore, as soon as be came to know of the said order he paid the transfer price within one week of the knowledge and, therefore, he cancellation of transfer of property from his name was without lawful authority. However, this contention of the appellant was repelled by the learned Single Judge and it was found that the order, dated 9th March, 1965 was announced in the open Court in presence of the counsel of the appellant and that the order sheet of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was also signed by the learned counsel, who represented the appellant before Additional Settlement Commissioner. Mr. S. M Abbas the learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the initial order of cancellation of the property dated 7th February, 1963 was a void order and. therefore, all subsequent orders passed on the basis of that order were also void. It is also contended that the order, dated 9th March, 1965 passed by the Additional Settlement E Commissioner restoring the transfer of property conditionally was also a bad order and therefore non‑compliance of such an order could not result in cancellation of transfer in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel also attempted to argue once again that appellant being unaware of the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner could not be held liable for non‑compliance of the same. None of the con tentions raised by the learned counsel has any substance. The order, dated 9th March, 1965 was passed by the Additional Settlement Com missioner on an appeal filed by the appellant against be cancellation of his transfer. It is not disputed before us that the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 9th March, 1965 was not challenged by the) appellant any further and, therefore, the appellant cannot now take the plea that the order was bad in law or passed without jurisdiction. The subsequent cancellation of the transfer in favour of the appellant proceeded entirely on the basis of the order, dated 9th March, 1965 and, it is not disputed before us that the transfer price as directed in the order dated 9th March, 1965 was not paid by the appellant. In these circumstances the appellant cannot make any grievance with regard to cancellation of the transfer of the property in his favour. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was aware of the order, dated 9th March, 1965 but failed to pay the transfer price as directed. This finding of the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. We agree with the learned Single Judge that no case for interference is made out and even otherwise the conduct of the appellant in this case was highly negligent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.