1969 PLP 154 (SCMR)

Sch., Part I and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98‑Property wrongly transferred‑Mere issuance of notice by Settlement Commissioner calling upon transferee to justify transfer‑Could not furnish abase for a Constitutional writ‑High Court, held, rightly dismissed petition under Art. 98 of Constitution. Muhammad Ismail Bhalti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mahmud Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th November 1968. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner claims that he is a valid transferee of an evacuee industrial property bearing No. 36‑R‑48, Railway Road, Lahore, known as Amritdhara Pharmacy, having obtained it by private negotiation in lieu of a sum of Rs. 5,000 which was accepted by the Settlement Department vide memorandum No. 1038/R. B. dated the 1 d of February 1960. The memorandum recited that the highest bid made in auction of the factory held on the 24th of December 1959, was of the amount of Rs. 2,400 made by one Mr. Chand. . The Chief Settlement Commissioner did not accept this bid and cancelled the auction accepting the offer of Virasat Ullah (petitioner) of Rs. 5,000 for the concern. It was further stated therein that a copy of the inventory should be prepared at the time of handing over the possession and that a formal order for the provisional transfer of the concern will follow. Thereafter this property along with property No. 46 were together considered as one big mansion and put to auction. The petitioner made an application to the Settlement Department for demarcation of the passage to building No. 48 allegedly purchased by him and was informed that no part of the building had ever been transferred to him as he was merely the purchaser of pharmaceutical machinery housed in the building. The petitioner challenged the auction on the part of the Settlement Department by a writ petition in the High Court. Another writ petition was filed by one Shabir Hussain for his claim that he was an allottee of a part of the same building. Both the petitions were disposed of by a single order of the High Court, dated the 4th October 1965. It was held that the two buildings could not be .considered as one big mansion. It appears that on the strength of this judgment the petitioner was able to secure a P. T. D. in his favour on the 20th December 1965. The matter was reopened on the report of a Settlement inspector that the P. T. D. had been wrongly issued to the petitioner at a misreading of a High Court judgment. He gave a complete history of the case showing that only the machinery of Amritdhara Pharmacy was sold to the petitioner through negotiation for a sum of Rs. 5,

000. On a clear understanding that only machinery of the Pharmacy was being sold, On the basis of this report a notice was issued to the petitioner on the 29th of December 1965, by the Settlement Commissioner asking him to appear before him on the 18th of January 1966, in connection with the case regarding Amritdhara Pharmacy and that he should also produce any documentary proof in his possession. The petitioner challenged this notice by writ petition for the relief that the Settlement Commissioner should be directed not to proceed with the case started by him as per notice mentioned above. A learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed this petition observing that the issuance of a notice by the Settlement Commissioner on the petitioner requiring him to satisfy the Settlement Commissioner that the property was transferred to him could not have furnished a basis for a Constitutional writ as the matter has yet to be finally decided. The learned Single Judge, however, directed that the matter should be placed. before some Settlement Commissioner (other than the one who has issued the notice) preferably before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for examination of the entitlement of the petitioner. Being satisfied from this order the petitioner moved a Letters Patent Appeal which has been dismissed and he has come up to this Court for special leave to appeal. We are unable to see any point in this leave petition except the uneasiness on the part of the petitioner to undo the notice issued to him by the Settlement Commissioner which merely required that the petitioner should disclose his credential as the transferee of the property in dispute. The learned Single Judge has directed that the entitlement of the petitioner should be duly examined and we see no apparent reason why the petitioner wants to avoid this examination. The grievance of the petitioner at this stage is baseless and premature. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.