1985 PLP 1779 (SCMR)

Abdul Hameed v. Municipal Committee, Lyallpur and others PLD 1973 Lah. 399 and Sh. Rehmatullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre 'A', Karachi and others P L D 1963 S C 633 rel. Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with permission of the Court as he did not place on record the power‑of‑attorney at the hearing and undertook to do so later for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th June, 1985. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑Pursuant to the provisions of section 25(2)(s) of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, sanction was accorded by the Central Government by a letter, dated 14th August, 1958 for the sale of evacuee land measuring 3 Kanals and 5 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 1437/253 to the Punjab Road Transport Board for the construction of a bus stand at Talagang, District Campbellpur. Nonetheless by an order, dated 25th April, 1964 this land was allotted to respondent No. 5 (Muhammad Yaqub) against his claim which he later sold to respondent No. 4 (Nasim Baz Khan), who in turn sold it to the petitioner for Rs.10,

000. Before this transfer the Punjab Road Transport Board by cheque deposited the price of the land amounting to Rs.5,411.25 on 20th January, 1960 with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, however, did not execute any conveyance deed in favour of the Punjab Road Transport Board nor pass any transfer order in spite of the sale obligation having been fulfilled. The Additional Settlement Commissioner being moved on the subject set aside the transfer by order, dated 4th November 1964 holding it to be void ab initio. The appeal filed against the order was dismissed on the 28th May, 1965. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the suit seeking a declaration as to his being the owner of the land and alternatively for the recovery of Rs.10,000 from the transferee. This suit was partially decreed on 27th February, 1970 to the extent that the alternative prayer was allowed. The appeal against the declaratory relief not having been granted was dismissed on 4th March, 1974. The petitioner thereupon filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court which too met the same fate. In maintaining the order of the Courts below the High Court held itself to be bound by a Division Bench judgment in the case of Abdul Hameed v. Municipal Committee Lyallpur and others P

1. D 1973 Lah. 399 in which it was held that the effect of the sanction accorded by the Central Government under section 25(2)(s) was that the property did not form part of the compensation pool, therefore it could the subject‑matter of transfer under the Displaced Persons Settlement) Act 1958. This conclusion was based on the notification bearing No. R‑5/1‑60 (1462), dated 8th of June, 1960, issued by the Central Government under section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act which explicitly excepted the sale of evacuee land in respect of which sanction had already been granted by the Central Government from becoming a part of the compensation pool. In Sh. Rehmatullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre 'A' Karachi and others P L D 1963 S C 633 this Court rejected the plea that the transferee in possession acquired a vested right in the evacuee property transferred to him on the strength of the notification excluding the property from the compensation pool for the transfer of which approval had been given by the Central Government under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing his ground for leave urged that in the absence of any conveyance deed or transfer order there was no effective sale. This submission is without substance as the property was not available for transfer under the Act as it had not formed part of the compensation pool. Accordingly the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the sale in favour of the Punjab Road Transport Board. In this view of the matter it is hardly open to the learned counsel to raise the question of a valid sale. Accordingly the petition is without substance and is dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.