1990 PLP 1181 (SCMR)

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Dispute relates to half portion of Property No.SE‑13‑R‑45, Infantry Road, Lahore. This was transferred to Ch. Muhammad Jalil by the Settlement Authority on 9‑2‑1960. After payment of the transfer price, he was issued P.T.D. on 10‑6‑1962. tie rented out the portion to Aziz Fazal, respondent No.1. Ch. Muhammad Jalil instituted ejectment proceedings against Aziz Fazal, inter alia, on the ground for bona fide personal need. Aziz Fazal resisted his ejectment and after protracted litigation, which is not necessary to be detailed here, he was ordered to be ejected on 29‑10‑1986. His appeal failed on 3‑1‑1987. He filed a Writ Petition No.273 of 1987 which is dismissed in limine on 16‑10‑1987.

2. The landlord having died, his widow filed execution proceedings. Aziz Fazal filed objection petition in the execution proceedings on 21‑2‑1987 saying that the property vested in Muhammad Maqsood who had executed an agreement in his favour on 21‑2‑1987 agreeing to sell the property. Muhammad Maqsood also filed an objection petition saying that the property had been transferred to him by the Settlement Authorities on 23‑9‑1984. The successors‑in -interest of the landlord filed a reply to the objection petitions.

3. While the matter was pending before the executing Court, Muhammad Maqsood filed an ejectment application against Aziz Fazal before another Rent Controller and on concession by Aziz Fazal, the application of ejectment was all wed on 12‑3‑1987. The successors‑in‑interest of the landlord filed a Writ Petition No.3106 of 1987 which was contested by Muhammad Maqsood claiming to be transferee of the property from the Settlement Department on 23‑9‑198.1 saying that TO had been issued in his favour and consequential mutation has also been sanctioned. The allegation in the writ petition that the TO had been obtained by fraud can only be challenged through a civil suit.

4. After hearing the contesting parties, the learned Single Judge in a clear and lucid order came to the conclusion that the transfer in favour of Muhammad Maqsood was fraudulent, the property having already been permanently transferred in favour of Ch. Muhammad Jalil. This is vide order of the learned Single Judge dated 16‑4‑1989. It is challenged through this petition for leave to appeal by Syed Muhammad Farooq who claims that the property had been gifted in his favour by Muhammad Maqsood on 2‑7‑1987. 5, The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the TO in favour of Muhammad Maqsood dated 23‑9‑1984 and consequential mutation could not have been declared to be without lawful authority by the learned single Judge. The writ petitioner's only remedy was by way of a civil suit.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. The learned Single Judge has taken pains to go through the protracted and devious litigation and came to the conclusion that the property transferred in favour of Ch. Muhammad Jail made on 9‑2‑1960 for Transfer Deed had been issued on 10‑11‑1962 was no more which Permanent Tran available to be transferred after more than two decades to Muhammad Maqsood whom the TO was issued on 23‑9‑1984. Transfer in favour of Muhammad Jalil to has again being verified on the. application of his widow by the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lahore, vide memo dated 30‑3‑1987. It was conceded that it was still intact and that being so, behind the bar of the original transferee, the me could neither be transferred nor any TO issued to Muhammad same property Maqsood on ~23‑9‑1984 nor any mutation sanctioned in his favour. The orders were rightly declared to be without lawful authority by the learned Single Judge. Muhammad Maqsood having acquired no legal right could gift nothing to the petitioner. 7, The petition has no merit whatsoever. It is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. A.A./M‑1245/S