1975 PLP 153 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The dispute between the parties is over a house situated at Gowalmandi in Lahore. The petitioner claims to have purchased it at an auction held on the I 9th of April, 1973. The auction was confirmed on the 28th of April, 1973, and a Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to the petitioner on the 27th of June, 1973. It appears, however, that on the 10th of August, 1960, the house was ordered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be transferred to one Saeed Muhammad, a claimant in possession. In September 1960 Saeed Muhammad entered into an association with respondent No. 1 Sh. Safdar Ali and a Provisional Transfer Order was issued to Sh. Safdar Ali in April 1962. A registered notice was sent to Sh. Safdar Ali for paying the balance of the price of the house in March 1970 and apparently on failure to pay the balance of the price an order of resumption of the property was passed on the 24th of April, 1970. In July 1973 Sh. Safdar Ali filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the order of resumption and also for the cancellation of auction held can the 11th of April, 1973. The appeal was accepted on 3‑12‑1973, and the auction proceedings were set aside and the case remitted to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for further proceedings. The Additional Settlement Commissioner found that the notices of resumption had been sent to a wrong address and they were not served upon tie respondent. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Lahore High Court on a writ petition and it was dismissed in limine on the 30th of January, 1974. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition agreed with the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the notices had not been sent to the correct address and that they had not been served upon respondent No.

1. The learned Judge also agreed with the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner that although there was a balance of Rs. 4,420 only in respect of the price of the property the notices demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 13,248 as the price of the property. It has been contended before us that a Permanent Transfer Deed having already been issued to the petitioner the Settlement authorities became functus officio and could not deal with the property any longer. This point does not appear to have been raised before the High Court and it was not discussed by the Court. We, therefore, cannot permit the petitioner to raise this point for the first time in this Court. Besides the house having been already transferred to Sneed Muhammad and later to Sh. Safdar Ali unless and until the house was legally resumed it could not be put up to auction. The Permanent Transfer Deed appears to have been issued to the petitioner before the time for filing an appeal bad expired. It has next been contended that the aforesaid association deed between Saeed Muhammad and respondent Sh. Safdar Ali was not approved by the Settlement authority and, therefore, the respondent had no locus standi to question the transfer of the house to the petitioner. The learned Judge observed about this contention that the petitioner admitted that a Provisional Transfer Order was actually issued to respondent Sh. Safdar Ali. That being so, it is legitimate to infer that the association deed must have been accepted and approved by the Settlement authority otherwise no such Provisional Transfer Order could have been issued. We do not think this is a fit case in which we should interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.