P L D 1969 Karachi 603 (PLP)

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 Laches Petitioners' CH Forms rejected without giving due hearing and such rejection not duly intimated either‑Petitioners' assertion in affidavit that they had been pursuing their cases diligently not controverted‑Settlement authorities giving no satisfactory reason for rejection orders‑Appeal filed with delay due to appellant's inability to get copies of orders despite their best efforts‑No negligence in circumstances, held, could be attributed to petitioners‑Orders of Settlement Authorities quashed. The question raised in this petition is whether the disputed premises were improperly put to auction without disposing of the C. H. Form of the petitioners. The relevant facts are these:‑

2. The petitioners are claimants displaced persons. On 10th May 1948, the disputed house, which bears No. IV‑D‑23, H. V. 2/61/13/2 consisting of ground and first floors, and situated on Meghji Bhawanji Street, Near Shoe Market, Karachi, was allotted to the father of the petitioners and the petitioner No.

2. The petitioners filed an application for transfer of this house on C. H. Form. It is alleged by them that they continued to visit the settlement office from time to time for disposal of this application but did not receive any satisfactory reply, so that, ultimately, the petitioners were compelled to make a written application, which they did on 13th November 1961, which they sent to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's office by registered post. But they did not receive any reply even to this application. In January 1963, the petitioners received notice from respondent No. 5, from which they came to know that the premises had been put to auction and transferred to her. The petitioners say that their efforts to obtain copies of the order rejecting their C. H. Form failed and that they could get this copy only through an Advocate, whom they were compelled to engage for this purpose. They then learnt their C. H. Form had been rejected by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 21‑11‑1962, which date is given in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24‑4‑1964.

3. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who, on 30th July 1963, dismissed this appeal on the ground that the appeal should have been taken before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as their C. H. Form had been rejected by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, they filed another appeal before Mr. I. A. Nomani, the then Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, who admitted the appeal to regular hearing and also condoned the delay in its filing. But when the appeal came up for hearing before Mr. Syed Shamshad Hussain Zaidi, another Deputy Settlement Commissioner, it was dismissed on the ground that the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was passed in exercise of the powers of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner delegated to him. Therefore, the petitioners had again to go before the Additional Settlement Commissioner to challenge the rejection of their C. H. Form as well as the transfer of the disputed property to the respondent No.

5. This appeal was dismissed on 22nd July 1965. and a further revision was dismissed on 20th October 1965, by the Settlement Commissioner.

4. The orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner are based only on one ground that is, that the petitioners were guilty of laches in pursuing their C. H. Form. In my view this finding is incorrect. The petitioners have alleged in their petition, which is supported by an affidavit, which affidavit has not been controverted by the Settlement Depart ment, that they had been frequently visiting the Settlement office in connection with their C. H. Form, but they were put off every time by the officers of the Department on one pretext or another, and that ultimately they had to send a written application on 30th November 1961, under registered post. An acknowledge ment due card, said to relate to this application, is on the record. But there was no reply even to this application. It has been observed by this Court that the Settlement Officers, in a large number of cases, either due to pressure of work or for some other reason, did not dispose of application for transfer of properties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, even though the affected parties had been approaching them frequently for disposal of their cases. In the present case also, I have no reason to disbelieve the petitioners when they say that they did, in fact, regularly visit the Settlement office for disposal of their C. H. Form, and even sent an application under registered post, acknowledgement due, on 30th November 1961. Moreover it has to, be noted that according to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 20th April 1964, the C. H. Form was pending in the Department up to 21st November 1962, and it was on this date that this form was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The question is whether before rejecting this form the petitioners had been duly heard and given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed order. Another question is whether this rejection was duly intimated to the petitioners. But there is no material to suggest that the petitioners were given due hearing before rejection of their C. H. Form, or that this rejection was duly intimated to them. I, would, I therefore, presume that the order of rejection was made without hearing the petitioners and, further, that no notice of this order was given to the petitioners at all. An objection to the maintainability of the petition raised by Mr. Akhtar Mahmood is that at least in January 1963, the petitioners came to know of the transfer of the disputed house to the respondent No. 5, but that their appeal was only filed in July 1963. But on this point also the petitioners have given a satisfactory explana tion, which is that in spite of their best efforts, they failed to get copies of the orders rejecting their C. H. Form and transfer of the house to the respondent No. 5, without which copies no appeal could have been maintainable at all. Ultimately, the petitioners obtained this copy with the assistance of an Advocate. In these circumstances, no negligence can be attributed to the petitioners.

5. I am, therefore, of the view that the disputed house was wrongly put to auction and, further, that no satisfactory reason has been given by the Settlement Department for rejecting the C. H. Form of the petitioners on 21st November 1962 without giving any hearing to them. With these observations, accordingly, I would accept this petition and set aside transfer of the disputed house to the respondent No. 5, and also quash the order rejecting the C. H. Form of the petitioners. The case will go back to the Settlement Department for disposal of the petitioner's C. H. Form and transfer of the disputed house to them if they are entitled thereto. The price paid by the respondent No. 5 for this house should be refunded to her within one month. Petition accepted.