Belated claim of ownership

2015 SCMR 380 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10Suit for possession, cancellation of documents, declaration, injunction and mesne profitNon evacuee status of propertyForged and fabricated "Provisional Transfer Order" (PTO) and "Permanent Transfer Deed" (PTD)Belated claim of ownership

Respondents filed civil suit against the appellant-bank claiming ownership of disputed property on the basis of a "Provisional Transfer Order" (PTO) and "Permanent Transfer Deed" (PTD) showing disputed property having been transferred to their predecessor-in-interest from the settlement department

Appellant-Bank claimed that it was the owner of the disputed property on the strength of a sale deed, and contended that disputed property was of non-evacuee nature thus it could not have been transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents

Validity

Prior to filing of suit by the respondents, the appellant-bank had initiated eviction proceedings against the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, and succeeded in getting an eviction order, which attained finality

Eviction proceedings remained sub-judice before the courts for over twelve years, and at no time during such period respondents made any mention of the "Provisional Transfer Order" (PTO) and "Permanent Transfer Deed" (PTD) in favour of their predecessor-in-interest

Civil suit claiming ownership of disputed property was filed by respondents much subsequent to the eviction order

Appellant-bank produced in court the original registered sale deed to establish their clear title over the disputed property

Committee formed to verify the alleged "Permanent Transfer Deed" (PTD) in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents concluded that the same was obtained through fraud in connivance with officials of the settlement department; that entries existing in the PTD register regarding disputed property were fabricated and bore forged and fabricated signatures, thus the "Permanent Transfer Deed" (PTD) in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents was bogus

With respect to the "Provisional Transfer Order" (PTO), the said order did not form part of any record of the settlement department, for the reason that no file of disputed property was ever opened or maintained in the settlement department for treating the property as an evacuee

Moreover, said order did not contain even the material particulars, the name of evacuee owner, the area of the property, its constructed area; its annual rental value as per DVL or any other document about the entitlement or status of respondents' predecessor-in-interest being an evacuee

"Provisional Transfer Order" (PTO) and "Permanent Transfer Deed" (PTD) were also found blank in material particulars such as the name of the evacuee owner of the property, the assessed price of the property by the settlement department as per the policy in vogue; details of its payments, if any, made by the respondents' predecessor and its mode

Even the amount of public dues and scrutiny fee was not mentioned in the copy of "Permanent Transfer Deed"

Relevant gazette notification also showed the status of disputed property as being non-evacuee property

Suit filed by respondents was dismissed

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2013 YLR 140 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 32(2)Confiscation of vehicleAppreciation of evidenceBelated claim of ownershipOwner of vehicle claiming ownership of same at appellate stageEffect

Police recovered 99 kilograms of charas pukhta, 48 kilograms of charas garda and 38.2 kilograms of opium from secret cavities of the truck in question

Trial Court ordered confiscation of the truck

Validity

Owner of truck never bothered to lay his claim of ownership before the Trial Court and instead waited for the fate of the case

Owner had approached the High Court at appellate stage of case claiming ownership to save himself from the clutches of the law being the alleged owner of the truck from which large quantities of charas and opium were recovered

Trial Court had rightly passed order for confiscation of the truck by observing all legal formalities contained in S.32(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.