1984 PLP 1391 (CLC)

‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Transfer of property‑‑Disputed shop whether or not a separate and independent unit and as such available for transfer under Scheme IX, held, a question of fact‑Administrator Residual Property visiting site in presence of parties and not finding any shop there‑Order of Administrator cancelling transfer of shop in name of petitioner‑ Unexceptionable.‑[Question of fact]. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Abdul Hameed petitioner wants this Court to declare that the order, dated 24‑8‑1980 passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Administrator, Residual Property, Multan cancelling the transfer of Shop' No. 2451A, Ward No. It, Gernali Road, Kot Addu from the name of the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that since 1947, the petitioner has been occupying shop comprising 2 rooms situated between Shop No. 245 and Shop _lo.

246. Shop No. 246 having one room was transferred to Abdul Rehman and the shop in occupation of the petitioner was declared as available for disposal under scheme No.

9. The petitioner applied for the transfer of the shop. Since the Deputy Administrator, Residual Property, Muzaffargarh found him entitled to the transfer of that shop from 1‑1‑1980, it was transferred to him as shop No. 245/A. Muhammad Iqbal respon dent who had purchased the adjoining Shop No. 246 from Abdul Rehman filed revision against the order, dated 1‑1‑1980 before Administrator, Residual Property, respondent No. 3 who on 24‑8‑1980 while accepting the revision cancelled the transfer of shop from the name of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel has contended (i) That the Deputy Administrator, Residual Property had rightly transferred the disputed shop to the petitioner and the same has been cancelled by respondent No. 3 without justification. (ii) That the plea of Muhammad Iqbal respondent No. 2 that the disputed shop was one shop which after having been partitioned, 1/2 of it was given to the petitioner, is factually incorrect inas much as the report of the Inspector Residual Property indicates that Property No. 245 is comprising 2 rooms and Property No. 246 is of one room. (iii) That once the property was transferred to Abdul Hameed peti tioner on 1‑1‑1980, respondent No. 3 was not competent to cancel it. ' (iv) That since Abdul Rehman from whom Abdul Hameed petitioner had purchased Shop No. 246 had not challenged the order, dated 1‑1‑1980, therefore, Muhammad Iqbal respondent No. t had no locus standi to challenge the transfer in favour of the petitioner.

4. After hearing the learned counsel, as for contentions raised at 1 and 2, I find that the question whether the disputed shop was a separate and independent shop or not and as such it was available for the transfer under Scheme No. 9, is a question of fact. The claim of the petitioner that the same being independent one was available, has been refuted by respon dent No. 3 who in the impugned order has stated that ; I have visited the site today in the presence of the parties and Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kot Addu and other councilors. It is established that Shop No. 245 was allotted to Wali Ullah son of Haji Bashir Ahmad and shop No. 246 originally was trans ferred to Abdul Rehman. The same Abdul Rehman transferred half portion of this shop to Muhammad Iqbal (present petitioner) and same Muhammad Iqbal rented out this portion to Abdul Hameed present respondent. There is no shop No. 245/A in between these shops or around them. When the property does not exist at the site it cannot be transferred to any person. The order of Deputy Administrator R.P., Muzaffargarh, dated 1‑1‑1980 is set aside and the appeal is accepted." The order indicates that respondent No. 3 had visited the site in the presence of the parties and he did not find any Shop No. 245/A there, and as such these contentions are without substance. As for contention No. 3, I am convinced that respondent No. 3 while exercising his revisional powers was quite competent to set aside the order‑dated 1‑1‑1980 and to cancel the transfer of shop to the petitioner. As for the last contention, I am of the view that since Muhammad Iqbal bad purchased Shop No. 246 from Abdul Rehman, therefore, he having stepped into his shoes could challenge the order, dated 1‑1‑1980.

5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine. H. Y. H, Petition dismissed.