1980 PLP 634 (SCMR)

Farrukh Ameen, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 18th December, 1979. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2nd April, 1975, by which Writ Petition No. 791 of 1974 was dismissed. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, Inayat Ali, filed a C. S. Form for the transfer of shop No. 718, Elgin Road, Saddar Bazar, Lahore Cantonment, on the basis of the possession of his son, of which Bata Shoe Company was a tenant. He failed to secure its transfer as the possession of his son was not established. It so happened that the shop was completely destroyed by fire on 27th of October, 1969, and it is the case of the petitioner that he raised a new construction on the site at his own cost. He, thereafter, submitted an N. C. S. Form on 31st October, 1969, and sought to establish by letter dated 8th January, 1970, that Bata Shoe Company had no interest in the premises. By order dated 8th March, 1972, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the Form. Aggrieved by it he filed an appeal and during its pendency the shop was auctioned on 11th April, 1973, for Rs. 17,000 to favour of respondent No. 4 and the bid was confirmed on the 17th April, 1973. His appeal was treated as revision under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. Against this order the petitioner filed the afore mentioned writ petition and claimed the transfer of the site under Settlement Scheme No. VIII read with Scheme No. VI. The High Court held that as he did not submit his form under para. 9 (d) (i) of Scheme No. VIII, he was not entitled for the transfer of the site as the construction was not raised before the crucial date that is before 1961 and further, the property had been sold to respondent No. 1 before the removal of the restriction on 13th of August, 1973, in the reconstituted Scheme No.VIII and hence it was not available for transfer. Before us the petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to the transfer of the site ; and it further appears from the comments of the Settlement department that after the rejection of his form on 8th March, 1971, the litigation went up to the High Court but he failed and thereafter' the shop was ordered to be auctioned. It was further stated in the comments that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied the site and raised a construction on it ; and as the site had been disposed of by auction it was not available for transfer. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was rightly non‑suited as he had no entitlement for the transfer of the site. The order of the High Court was. therefore, unexceptionable. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed,