Evacuee Property

Custodian Evacuee Property ordered deduction of cost of property and service charges from the compensation amount from transferees in terms of S.18-A(2) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 (Act)

Transferees challenged such order through writ petition, which was accepted in terms of proviso to Para-3 of the Evacuee Property Allottees (Compensation) Order, 1967 (Order)

Validity

Proviso to Para-3 of the Order relates to allottee, whereas, the land was transferred through gift-deed and the deduction had been made from transferees and not the allottee, and in view of S.18-A(2) of the Act in case of transfer of property by the allottee, the transferees shall pay to the Custodian the prescribed cost of property

Transferees had already paid the amount, thus, requirement of S.18-A(2) of the Act had been complied with and deduction of amount by the Custodian in lieu of compensation of proprietary right was not just

Under S.25(2)(p) & (q) of the Act the Custodian was vested with the powers to create a charge on evacuee property, incur or allow any expenditure to be incurred in the prescribed manner, thus, service charges had rightly been deducted before making of payment of compensation to the transferees

Appeal was accepted, in circumstances, however, deduction of amount to the extent of cost/compensation of proprietary rights was partly set aside.

Transfer of evacuee property was approved in 1951 by the [then]Evacuee Property Department [predecessor of Evacuee Trust Property Board, (ETPB)]

Subsequent declaration of property as 'evacuee trust property' in 1998 by Chairman ETPB by cancelling prior transfer which was approved in 1951

Legality

Approval of transfer by Additional Custodian

Jurisdiction and validity

Powers enjoyed by the [then] Custodian/Additional Custodian in matters pertaining to evacuee properties stated

Transfers approved by the Custodian/Additional Custodian prior to promulgation of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Validity and scope

Facts in brevity were that the property in dispute known as 'Guru Mandar Building' was originally held by the Guru Mandir Association (GMA), which sold it in 1948 through its authorized agent to a private entity known as Fredrick Sidney Cotton (FSC)

The sale was duly approved by Additional Custodian followed by a registered sale deed in 1951

In 1961 the Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance purchased the building from FSC and handed it over to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), which had since continuously occupied it as its headquarters

In 1998, the Chairman ETPB declared the building in question as evacuee trust property and ordered its takeover from FBR

Such decision was also affirmed by the revisional authority, prompting the institution of the present petition by the petitioner (FBR)

The cardinal question arose for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the initial transfer of the building in question i.e. Guru Mandar Building by GMA through its authorized agent to FSC was lawful and valid under the applicable evacuee property laws, thereby validating all subsequent transactions, or whether same was invalid so as to render the petitioner's claimed title and possession untenable?"

Held: The [then] law de jure governing evacuee property was the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, under S. 16 of which approval of transfer was sought which was rightly sanctioned by the D.C. (Judicial) Evacuee Property in 1951

GMA through its authorized agent and FSC followed the due process provided under 1949 Ordinance

The approval of transfer of building in question issued by the Additional Custodian in 1961 was rightly done and was in accordance with law

With regards to the challenge as to the jurisdiction of Additional Custodian approving the initial transfer in question it was accentuated that as per the definition of the term 'Custodian' provided under S. 2(1) of the 1949 Ordinance the term 'custodian' included both Additional/Deputy Custodian as well

Moreover, in presence of plethora of case law showing Additional/Deputy Custodians having approved transfers of evacuee properties under the 1949 Ordinance, therefore, by undoing such prior transfers of evacuee properties citing lack of authority of Additional/Deputy Custodian in approving the transfers would unduly upset a plethora of settled transactions

Moreover, S. 36 of the 1949 Ordinance empowered Additional/Deputy or Assistant Custodians to pass various orders under the 1949 Ordinance

Sections 16 and 17 of the 1949 Ordinance clearly show that the 'Custodian' (which term to include "Additional / Deputy / Assistant Custodian") had ample powers under the 1949 Ordinance, to facilitate transfer of evacuee properties

As per the documents on record, the prescribed process was duly followed which was never challenged at such time, therefore, the process undertaken had attained finality

Section 15 of the 1949 Ordinance also fortified the powers enjoyed by office of the Custodian relating to evacuee property which provided a prohibition on transfer of evacuee property, except with the approval of the Custodian

This further clarified that the Custodian had ample power under law to transfer the building in question at such time

The Custodian (including his officers) held the power to permit and facilitate transfer of evacuee property, including the building in question and in that regard no violation of law or process had been shown, therefore, the building in question was properly and lawfully transferred from GMA through its agent to FSC

Moreover, with respect to the order declaring the building in question as evacuee trust property, the Chairman ETPB under S. 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 did not take into account imperative aspects prior to such declaration i.e. any authentic documentation such as trust deed, registration certificate, etc. before the building was unilaterally declared as trust property

Application for allotment and slips / challan showing deposit of settlement fee could not hypothetically be treated as Provisional Transfer Order (PTO) or PTD

Declaration so sought by petitioners/plaintiffs in their plaint was based on their purported ownership which they failed to prove

Declaration could be sought only against existing rights and new rights could not be established by filing suit under section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Build-up property could only be allotted through PTO and PTD while RL-II was issued only for allotment of agricultured land

No building could be allotted or transferred on the basis of RL-II

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property which had been mortgaged in favour of their predecessor-in-interest by non-Muslim evacuee owner

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit and appeal in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Validity

All documentary evidence was produced on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs by their counsel in his statement

Documents relied upon should be produced in evidence by a party in its own statement so that the adverse party could have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the same

Documents produced by counsel of respondents / plaintiff lacked intrinsic value

High Court excluded such documents from consideration

Where a property, rightly or wrongly, is treated to be an evacuee property, such treatment of property can only be assailed through proceedings before Custodian of Evacuee Properties

Courts below did not take into consideration the evidence nor furnished any well-reasoned findings and committed misreading and non-reading of the evidence

Both the Courts below failed to apply correct law which was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be set-aside

High Court under S.115, C.P.C., has jurisdiction to interfere in perverse concurrent judgments and decrees of lower fora

Land in question was a public asset and Courts of law are custodian of public properties and public interest, and while dealing with matters relating to such properties/assets or interests, it is inalienable obligation of the Courts to be very careful and cautious and assure itself to the extent of certainty that no foul is being played with the State assets

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner / Evacuee Trust Board was aggrieved of restoration of lease of plot in question by Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman), which plot was leased out on the recommendation of the Minister concerned

Validity

Mechanism for the management, lease and disposal of Evacuee Trust properties was provided in Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, which was a special law

No provision was available in law whereby any authority was vested with the Minister to make recommendations to petitioner / Board for lease of any plot to any individual

Lease of plot owned by petitioner / Board to respondent did not fall within the jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib as provided in Art.9 of Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983

There was no evidence brought on record by respondent regarding any malpractice committed by petitioner / Board and if any cancellation of plot in question was made by petitioner / Board, respondent had remedy of filing Revision before Federal Government under S. 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Land in question was a public asset and Courts of law were custodian of public properties public interest

While dealing with matters relating to such properties/assets or interests, it was inalienable obligation of the Courts to be very careful and cautious and assure itself to the extent of certainty that no foul was being played with the state assets

Extraordinary obligation was placed upon the Courts to keep abreast itself with law and facts of the case and when certain material facts were unearthed before it then the matter should be decided as per law without being influenced by respective pleadings of the parties

High Court set aside order passed by Wafaqi Mohtasib and lease of plot in question in favour of respondent was cancelled as the same was illegal and void ab-initio

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

If there is some dispute regarding actual status of the property, it is the Chairman, who is competent to decide such question and to declare such property as evacuee trust property

On the other hand, provision of S.10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, presupposes that property in question is evacuee trust property and it empowers the Chairman in case a question arises as to whether a transaction referred to in S. 10(1) of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, is bona fide or not to decide the same

Provision of S. 10(3) of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, ordains that if transaction is not bona fide, Chairman may pass an order cancelling allotment or transfer of such property

Such decision either under S. 10(2) or order under S.10(3) of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, in respect of property has to be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person.

Petitioner was aggrieved of order passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board (ETPB), without affording him proper opportunity of hearing and directing the Administrator, ETPB, to take over management and control of the property

Validity

Chairman has the exclusive authority to determine questions relating to status of the property as evacuee trust property and to pass a decision about validation of certain transfers relating to evacuee trust property

If reference before Chairman involves intricacy of facts, same cannot be decided in a summary and slipshod manner, as per requirements of S. 21 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Power of a civil court has been bestowed upon Federal Government or any person authorized by it, the Chairman and every Officer appointed under Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, for the purposes of making any inquiry or hearing in appeal or revision under Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 for the matters mentioned therein

In the present petition various substantial questions including the question relating to competency of Chairman to proceed with the reference were raised

High Court directed Chairman ETPB to decide reference under Ss.8 & 10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, afresh after holding thorough inquiry and probe and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Respondent got land in question mutated in his name on the basis of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in year 1952, which land was an evacuee land

Predecessor-in-interest of appellants sought cancellation of land in question from the name of respondent but he remained unsuccessful

Held, that after creation of Pakistan, all evacuee properties abandoned by non-Muslim evacuees stood vested with Central Government of Pakistan, who by operation of law had become owner of land in question under S. 6 of Pakistan (Protection of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1948

Bar was imposed under S. 12 of Pakistan (Protection of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1948, regarding transfer of any evacuee property on or after 1-8-1947, and all issues regarding such evacuee lands stood vested in the jurisdiction of Custodian

Appellants as well as respondent did not agitate the matter before such statutory forum

Respondent after lapse of a period of about 7 years challenged the transaction/sale deed dated 5-6-1944 before Civil Court on 1-10-1951 knowing that vendees after abandoning their lands had migrated to India

Respondent instituted a civil suit in Civil Court without arraying Central Government or Custodian as party to such civil suit

Suit was malafidely filed against non-Muslim vendees who were not living in Pakistan, rather they had migrated to India in the year 1947

Such suit land vested in government and respondent by committing fraud obtained decree from Civil Court without arraying necessary parties

Such decree was inexecutable as the same was passed without jurisdiction and was in itself void in nature and was devoid of creating any right

Division Bench of High Court directed revenue authorities to take necessary action against mutation in favour of respondent, which was based upon void and inexecutable decree

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revenue hierarchy passed concurrent findings against petitioner declaring mutation in question as bogus / fictitious document

Validity

Parties were venturing to obtain evacuee land and any dispute regarding such property / land could only be adjudicated or settled exclusively at the forum of Settlement Department

Civil Court had no jurisdiction to intrude into the jurisdictional realm of revenue department under S.41 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Even if Civil Court had passed any decree that was without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law or void ab initio and same was in-executable

Both the parties failed to prove title of that person from whom they allegedly derived their title

High Court directed Settlement Authorities to retrieve possession of land in question

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Main challenge of the appellant/plaintiff, in the suit, was with regard to the validity of the Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) dated 15-1-1962, for which purpose the Deputy Settlement Officer had referred him to have recourse to Civil Court for the redress of his grievance

Order of the Deputy Settlement Officer referring the appellant to Civil Court could not, give him a fresh period of limitation to institute the suit to challenge the validity of the PTD dated 15.1.1962

As far as the appellant's knowledge of the PTD dated 15.1.1962 was concerned, he had knowledge from 17-03-1973 when he vide the deed of General Power of Attorney accepted to represent his mother, as her attorney, in litigation concerning the suit property and thereafter did represent her before all courts and authorities, including the High Court

As per Article 14 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, the period of limitation for instituting a suit to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government made by him in his official capacity, not otherwise expressly provided for in the said Act, was one year from the date of the act or order; while under the residuary Article 120, the period of limitation was six years

Whichever of these two periods was applied, the suit of the appellant having been instituted on 31-01-1987 to challenge the PTD dated 15.1.1962 was clearly barred by the law of limitation

Appeal was dismissed.

Conduct of the appellant/plaintiff, throughout the entire proceedings culminating in the institution of the suit, was not above board

Firstly, the appellant, while representing his mother as her attorney, stated himself to be a resident of the house bearing property No. 65/1-C, not No.65-ABC

As per his own statement made in the deed of General Power of Attorney, he stated to have been residing with his mother in the house bearing property No. 65/1-C, thus, leaving doubt as to how he could simultaneously be in possession of another house bearing property No.65-ABC as claimed by him in his application made to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, seeking transfer of that house in his favour

Secondly, the appellant was unable to clearly and specifically state the period of his alleged possession, in his application of the house bearing property No.65-ABC he was claiming transfer in his favour, within the contemplation of the Scheme in question

Finally, the silence and inaction on the part of the appellant in agitating his own alleged grievance, when he was pursuing the identical cause of his mother on her behalf as her attorney, before different forums portrayed a very negative impression which was very hard to ignore

Such conduct of the appellant disentitled him to the discretionary relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Appeal was dismissed.

Proceedings pending after the cutoff date specified under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

After the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 ('the Act'), the officers notified under the Act, do not possess the jurisdiction to declare any Provisional Transfer Order ("PTO") or Permanent Transfer Deed ("PTD") regarding which no proceedings were pending on the cutoff date (specified under the Act), as null and void on the grounds of alleged fraud or forgery; they can only deal with and decide the pending proceedings and cannot initiate any new proceeding

Anyone who wants to challenge any PTO or PTD issued under the repealed laws, and has locus standi to do so, is to knock at the doors of Civil Court, a court of plenary jurisdiction, for the redress of his grievance.

After repeal only Civil Court was competent to hear and decide cases under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Respondent after repeal of Settlement Laws approached Civil Court through a civil suit which was allowed in revisional jurisdiction and Constitutional petition against such order was dismissed by High Court

Such order passed by High Court was maintained up to Supreme Court and proceedings had attained finality before Civil Court

Once a person had approached Civil Court, under S.172(2) of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Revenue Courts were restrained

Even under S.9, C.P.C., Civil Court was Court of ultimate jurisdiction and Board of Revenue had no authority to pass any order under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Revenue authority had rightly passed order under S.172(vi) of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, correcting entry in record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations, as the same was under his ambit

High Court set aside order passed by Board of Revenue

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by applicants/ plaintiffs was that allotment in favour of defendant/respondent was a result of collusion with authorities

Validity

Applicants/plaintiffs should have made subsequent purchasers as one of the defendants, who was necessary and proper party in terms of O. I, R.10, C.P.C.

Predecessor-in-interest of applicants/plaintiffs opted not to implead subsequent purchaser as one of the defendants, who was bona fide purchaser for value and his rights and interests in respect of suit property were protected and could not be set aside, except through a proper proceedings

No collusion between official and private respondents inter se, inter alia

"Provisional Transfer Order" was issued by Settlement Department on 11-11-1959 and "Permanent Transfer Deed", which was a title document, was issued on 25-10-1967

When the same was challenged after six years through revision proceedings before authorities, it was rightly dismissed vide order dated 29-09-1973

No undue haste was present in such entire exercise of allotment of suit property to respondent/defendant

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two Courts below as the same did not suffer from any material irregularity, illegality nor were contrary to record

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of civil Court would be ousted only when declaration was sought against the Custodian of Evacuee Property, however, when the dispute was of civil nature between the parties then jurisdiction of civil Court could not be claimed to have been ousted

Compromise decree had been passed on the statement of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs could not take an inconsistent position by saying that fraud had been committed

General allegation of fraud could not be accepted until the details and manner of commission of fraud was proved by the party

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Custodian of Evacuee Property, being a Special Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, finding of facts recorded by the Custodian were not to be interfered with by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed through promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

No fresh allotment could be made by Notified Officer/Chief Settlement Commissioner and if any earlier allotment of evacuee land was obtained fraudulently, he has inbuilt inherent power to investigate matter of fraudulent allotment of evacuee land

Fraudulent allotment has no sanctity in eyes of law and Chief Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to adjudicate or investigate genuineness of claim

If Chief Settlement Commissioner found existence of fraud committed in obtaining allotment of evacuee property, he can reverse such allotment order.

No right can be claimed in property merely on basis of declaration under S. 18 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949.

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners had purchased evacuee property which was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of respondents

Allotment of property was cancelled in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners and predecessor-of-interest of respondents remained in possession of property

Validity

Case of petitioners fell within S. 16 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 and not S. 18 of the said Ordinance

Unless alleged transfer of rights by evacuee was confirmed, no registration was permissible under S. 17 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 which otherwise was essential as deed of sale was unregistered and remained so, despite lapse of statutory time provided for registration

Despite erroneous declaration extended by Custodian, deed of sale was not registered nor it became eligible for registration without seeking confirmation

Alleged rights were not recorded in revenue record

No claim for possession or alleged rights was raised and there was no plausible justification for delaying the filing of application under S. 18 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 apparently filed in year 1954

There was deliberate withholding of information from custodian regarding possession, control and management of evacuee property as essentially required under S. 8 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949

Custodian while making declaration had not dilated upon issue of limitation which was a crucial matter

Claim of petitioners regarding transaction of sale was devoid of any lawful basis

Such transaction neither created nor conferred any right on property unless statutory conditions were fulfilled

In absence of grant of confirmation no rights could be claimed for property which remained evacuee for all intent and purposes and vested in government after repeal of Evacuee and Settlement laws

Orders passed by Custodian were void, of no legal effect and devoid of lawful authority

Once allotment was cancelled being bogus and unsuccessfully challenged by original allottee, civil court had no jurisdiction in law to adjudge claim of subsequent vendee claiming rights of a bona fide purchaser

No rights of bona fide purchaser could be claimed under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Respondents were not eligible to claim any alleged rights in property and claim of petitioners with respect to property was already declared as void and of no legal effect

Property in question vested in government and same was required to be dealt with in accordance with mandate of S. 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, & 24 of the judgment]

Any act in law, which is nullity, coram non judice or devoid of jurisdictional competence can be impugned before civil court, including an action of Settlement Officer passed after repeal of Evacuee and Settlement laws. [Para. 20 of the judgment]

Trust could not be created for an immovable property without an instrument or trust deed duly registered under S. 5 of Trusts Act, 1882

Authorities only relied upon entry appearing in easement column of extract of Property Register Card but they could not produce any concrete evidence that a trust was ever in existence at subject property

Hindu owner might have allowed to take water from his bore-well as 'Ishta' or sacrificial gifts to surrounding tenements and as soon as bore-well vanished, land on which bore-well was available could be used by its owner in any manner

Such act of allowing to take water was a sacrificial gift and such offering could not create a trust unless owner had manifested creation of a charitable trust by a non-testamentary instrument in writing and signed by him and got same registered under S. 5 of Trusts Act, 1882

Property in question was a chunk comprising as many as 11 survey numbers

Amongst them, there was an entry in Property Register Card of only one survey number showing words 'well charitable'

On basis of such entry alone authorities unjustifiably declared that entire chunk, i.e., remaining survey numbers also as Evacuee Trust Property

Save to that entry, there was nothing on record to favour authorities regarding their plea that subject property belonged to a trust set up by previous Hindu owner of property

Petitioners were enjoying property for such a long time with their full rights and even their properties were mortgaged with House Building Finance Corporation

During all such activities, authorities remained in deep slumber, as such any claim on their behalf was otherwise not maintainable on grounds of laches

High Court set aside orders cancelling ownership of petitioners as they were not sustainable in law

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Whether property once declared as evacuee, which was later restored to the original owners, could re-acquire the status of evacuee property due to movements of some or all of the owners outside Pakistan

Before partition of sub-continent subject properties were owned by a Hindu, who had mortgaged it against a loan obtained from a Bank in India

After death of the owner and partition of sub-continent the subject properties were declared as evacuee properties

In 1948, the widow and sons of the deceased owner came from India to Pakistan and moved an application under S. 17 of the West Punjab Protection of Evacuee Property Act, 1948, which was allowed and subject properties were declared not to be evacuee properties and restored to the family subject to the conditions that the owners would not alienate the property nor would dispossess the tenants therein and upon failure to reside in Pakistan, the order of restoration would stand annulled and the property would regain the status of evacuee property

Held, that status of subject properties could revert back to that of an evacuee property if it seemed that the return of the heirs of the original owner to Pakistan in 1948 after the property was already declared evacuee in 1947 was temporary and intended to avoid the consequence of evacuee laws

Properties in question were to be treated as evacuee due to the shifting stands and contradictory statements made by the owners before the Deputy Custodian as regards the permanent residence of the owners

When the mortgagee Bank filed a suit in 1952 for the sale of property in question, the owners resisted the sale on the ground that property was evacuee though their case throughout had been that they had become residents of Pakistan permanently

Even if the property had not been declared evacuee, the fact that it was mortgaged with a Bank and on account of the fact that it was not redeemed/sold in auction proceedings, no right, title or interest remained in the successor-in-interest of the original owner

For the first time after partition (in the year 1948) the owner's widow came to Pakistan and claimed that the family intended to permanently settle in Pakistan and on that basis the property was restored in 1948 on certain conditions

In view of the fact that the widow failed to establish that her sons made Pakistan their permanent place of residence, the property had to be regarded as an evacuee property and the High Court rightly held to be so

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board had the jurisdiction to determine the status of a property as to evacuee property or not

Present dispute could not be brought to the Civil Court nor Civil Court could assume jurisdiction to entertain the same to adjudicate as to whether suit land was evacuee property or not

Party should approach the relevant forum prescribed by law to seek such clarification

Civil Court could entertain suit if its jurisdiction was not expressly or impliedly barred by law

Jurisdiction of Civil Court, in the present case, had been expressly barred by law

Even order of Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board could not be questioned in the Civil Court

Findings recorded by the Courts below did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Right of plaintiff to claim declaration qua alleged claim of ownership had been adjudicated upon and determined by the Courts of competent jurisdiction conclusively which had otherwise attained finality

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allottees of evacuee land were aggrieved of order passed by Notified Officer whereby allotment in their favor was cancelled and land was resumed in favour of the State and validated allotment in favour of appellants

Single Judge of High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside order passed by Notified Officer

Validity

Allotment in favor of predecessor-in-interest of appellants was result of blatant fraud and was void ab initio

Such allotment did not confer any right or title upon fraudulent allottee or any subsequent purchaser from said allottee

Subsequent vendee had to sail and sink with title of their vendor and they were debarred to claim any better title than that of their vendors

Stance of appellants as bona fide purchaser was initially turned down by the Chief Settlement Commissioner which had never been challenged by appellants and attained finality

Appellants themselves had moved application for purchase of said land under S. 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 as well as Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, meaning thereby that they themselves abandoned or waived claim of bona fide purchasers

Appellants were precluded to reassert pleas of bona fide purchaser as such protection of S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not available to the subsequent purchaser

Land in question fell within urban limits of Municipal Committee vide notification dated 12-5-1961 and under notification dated 16-5-1973 as well as S. 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 and Paras. 1(d), 11, 12 and 30 of Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, thus same could not be allotted against any agricultural claim

Division Bench of High Court set aside findings of the Single Judge of High Court to such extent as same were not in consonance with law on the subject and remaining judgment was maintained

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in accordingly.

Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the controversy with regard to evacuee property

Validity

Court while deciding the controversy with regard to cause of action had to consider the averments of the plaint and relief claimed by the plaintiff

If all the averments were presumed as correct and even then the relief could not be granted or the suit was barred by any law only then plaint could be rejected summarily under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

If plaintiff had made a prayer for more than one reliefs and out of multiple claims even if only one claim could be granted by the Court then plaint could not be rejected

Plaintiff in the present suit, had sought declaration for setting aside the challenged sale-deeds and mutations with the averments that same had been executed with fraud and misrepresentation

Only Civil Court had jurisdiction to set aside an illegal or void transaction and no other authority had jurisdiction to annul such sale-deeds

Relief with regard to cancellation of sale-deeds and mutations on the ground of being in excess of the share of vendor and question of impersonation was not barred by law for a Civil Court

Such questions could not be decided without recording evidence being questions of facts

Impugned order of Trial Court to that extent was not maintainable, in circumstances

Question of jurisdiction of Civil Court had wrongly been decided to the extent of alleged sale-deeds and mutations

Jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred with regard to the matters pertaining to partition of the evacuee land or ejectment of any person from the same

Rehabilitation Authorities had jurisdiction to make any partition of evacuee land which was un-partitioned and shares could also to be determined by the said Authority

When Rehabilitation Authorities were competent to make any order with regard to a particular subject then the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under S.18 of Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956

Question of ejectment from evacuee property could not be decided by the Civil Court

Relief claimed by the plaintiff to the extent of ejectment from the evacuee land was barred by law and plaint could be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. to that extent

Impugned order to said extent was correct and was maintained, in circumstances

High Court observed that issue with regard to validity of impugned sale-deeds and mutations should be decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence and suit to that extent be deemed as pending

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners purchased suit property already allotted as evacuee land and thereafter sought confirmation of sale effected in their favour

Application for confirmation of sale was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue

Validity

Allottees were not made party nor the allotment order made in their favour was challenged

Order of Rehabilitation Authority and mutation were in field when question of confirmation of sale was taken up

Such application was to be made within the prescribed period and by party to the transaction or by any person claiming under such party

Custodian of Evacuee Property was required to hold a summary inquiry in the prescribed manner and reject the application if prescribed conditions were not satisfied

Nothing was available on record with regard to any inquiry by the Custodian of Evacuee Property

Transaction in favour of petitioners had been made contrary to law

Father of applicants had died long after the ownership of property had vested in the Government

Application should have been filed within thirty days from the prescribed date

Predecessor of petitioners did not apply for confirmation of sale before competent forum during his life time

Application for confirmation of sale being time barred, Petitioners had no locus standi to file the application

Member Board of Revenue had passed the impugned order after proper appreciation of record

Legal heirs of allottees could seek proper remedy with all just and legal exceptions

Disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners could not be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent claimed that suit property was not evacuee property, and that appellants were only in possession as licensees

Appellants contended that suit property was sold by respondent's mother to an evacuee before partition of sub-continent; that on partition the property was treated as evacuee property, and as appellants were displaced persons, the Settlement Department, transferred the same in their name

Validity

Suit property was sold by respondent's mother in favour of a hindu evacuee/purchaser, and name of the purchaser was duly reflected in the record of the Municipal Corporation, which record carried presumption of correctness in terms of Art. 92 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Respondent's mother, after selling the property, never paid property tax till the date she remained alive; she never even contacted the appellants for the purposes of seeking the possession of the property or asserting herself to be the owner; she had also not been registered as an owner with the relevant tax authorities

Respondent's mother in her lifetime had never challenged the Permanent Transfer Deeds in favour of the appellants or sought the eviction of the appellants from the property

Such conduct on her part proved that she was not claiming the ownership of the property and, therefore, was estopped in terms of Art. 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Consequently, no valid locus standi would pass on to her son/respondent for claiming ownership of suit property

Respondent had obtained a consent decree in respect of ownership of suit property without any notice to appellants, in a clandestine manner, which otherwise was not binding upon the appellants

Immediately after obtaining the consent decree, respondent purportedly sold the property to a third party in a dubious manner

Respondent had failed to discharge the onus that appellants were licensees in the suit property

Consent decree obtained by respondent was set aside in circumstances and suit filed by him was dismissed

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Once a property was treated to be an evacuee property even erroneously, the same could not be held to be otherwise and the civil court in such behalf would have no jurisdiction.

Where the original allotment made in favour of the ostensible/purported allottee could not hold the field, any subsequent bona fide purchaser of the same could not be impleaded as party in the suit between the allottee and the Government.

Purported allotment in favour of respondents was confirmed by the courts below on the basis of extracts from the record of rights, a NOC purportedly issued by an official of the Forest department, a letter written by the Solicitor to the Provincial Government, and a letter written by the Minister for Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries

None of these documents, however, had been brought on the record in conformity with the mode provided by the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Chief Settlement Commissioner had issued Memorandum No. 65/795-R(L) dated 27.02.1965 specifying that evacuee lands in possession of the Forest Department whether notified or un-notified should not be allotted against claims under the provision of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme till further orders

Additional Settlement Commissioner or Forest Department had no power or authority to nullify or neutralize effect of the Memorandum, or read something in it which was not there

Additional Commissioner confirmed allotment of suit land on the undertaking of the respondents and/or on the basis of purported NOC of the Forest Department, when the Memorandum did not provide for either of them

Allotment of suit land in favour of respondents was cancelled in circumstances

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed by Notified Officer, whereby allotment order was recalled on the ground of fraud

Validity

Allotment order was obtained on the basis of forged document got prepared by unauthorized general power of attorney in favour of original allottees within urban limits against agriculture claim in year 1996, after repeal of Evacuee Laws

Allotted land was already declared as building site in year, 1973, and jurisdiction of Notified Officer was explicitly barred to deal with the affairs of such land/property in any manner whatsoever

Any order passed in violation of notification in question was to be treated as void and coram non judice, unjustifiable as urban properties could not be allotted against rural agricultural unit

Notified Officer had jurisdiction to re-open entire case to investigate element of fraud and decide the same as per law

Original transaction was unlawful, illegal and void ab initio

Every subsequent transaction based upon the same was bound to sink along with fate of the original

No illegality, perversity and irregularity in the order passed by Board of Revenue was found

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declined to interfere in the order passed by Notified Officer

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was a Hindu who embraced Islam and his father mutated land in favour of his sons excluding him

After partition, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners remained in possession of land left by his family but the authorities declared the land as evacuee "land" and allotted the same to other persons

In year 2003, Notified Officer declined to interfere in allotments on the plea that there was no "pending case"

Validity

In view of the provisions of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, it was the exclusive jurisdiction of Custodian to decide as to whether a person/applicant before him was entitled to have property and the question as to whether a property was evacuee or not could only be settled by the Custodian under settlement authority having jurisdiction to inquire into character of the property

Custodian was never approached by petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest in order to have a declaration as to the status of the property

Decision of Custodian under relevant law was appealable in view of S. 43 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957

Transfer of property was confirmed in favour of claimants on 14-6-1972 and mutations showing such confirmation were placed on record, which confirmations had never been challenged by petitioners

High Court did not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by Notified Officer

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit for declaration and injunction was filed by plaintiffs claiming that suit property was non-evacuee property and their mother was its real owner

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissed suit and appeal respectively filed by plaintiffs

Validity

Determination of status of property as evacuee trust property was within the exclusive domain of Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and jurisdiction of courts was barred

Property in question was taken over by authorities vide gazette notification dated 15-7-1963 and such notification could not be challenged by plaintiffs before civil court in view of provisions of S. 14 of Evacuee Trust Property Board Act, 1975

Findings of both the courts below were on correct proposition of law

High Court did not find any infirmity or material irregularity in judgments passed by two courts which could warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction of High Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of suit property but Settlement department had treated the same as evacuee property

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Plaintiff had failed to prove that he was owner in possession of suit property

Findings of both the courts below were based on proper appraisal of evidence available on record

Once a property was declared as evacuee property the person claiming interest in that property had to apply to the Custodian of Evacuee Property for declaration in his favour

Civil court had no jurisdiction in such matter

Present suit was not maintainable in circumstances

No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner of suit property on the basis of "transfer order" whereas defendants contended that suit property was not evacuee and Settlement and Rehabilitation department had no authority to transfer the same to the plaintiff

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Suit property was an evacuee property which was transferred to the plaintiff

Final "transfer order" had been issued against the price

"Transfer order" was still in field and had not been cancelled or set aside by any competent court of law

Plaintiff had deposited the entire auction money

Appellate Court had wrongly found that auction was not finalized as it was not the domain of the said court

Appellate Court could not reopen the matter

Defendants had not filed any suit for cancellation of "transfer order" before any competent court of law

Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the transfer order

Certified copy of a public document was a proof of the contents of the same and a presumption of genuineness was attached to the said copies if not rebutted otherwise

Plaintiff was owner in possession of suit property

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Suit was dismissed on the ground that suit land was an evacuee property and civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit

Validity

Jurisdiction of civil court had been ousted with regard to the matters whether any person or property was or was not an evacuee property or what right or interest if any an evacuee had in any such property

Custodian of Evacuee Property was empowered to determine the status of a person or property as evacuee or non-evacuee

Property in question was an evacuee property and same was not in the possession of plaintiffs

Courts below had rightly observed that disputed property was an evacuee property and civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain any suit with regard to such property

Present suit had rightly been dismissed

Appeal was dismissed with costs.

Settlement authorities on 20-9-1976 declared that property owned by plaintiff was in fact part of property purchased by defendant in auction

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal filed by plaintiff

Validity

On promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, entire rural and urban evacuee properties vested in Provincial Government by operation of law

Except to the extent of pending matters specified in Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, no property was available to Settlement or Rehabilitation authorities for disposal in any manner

Neither disputed property was pending for disposal nor was the matter regarding such property remanded by superior Court to Settlement authorities, as there was no such entity as Deputy Settlement Commissioner under any of the statutory laws in force after repeal of Settlement Laws

Defendant did not produce in his evidence record keeper of Settlement authorities to prove genuineness of disputed documents

Defendant withheld the best evidence, if any, for reasons best known to him, therefore, High Court derived inference against defendant

Settlement authorities were not competent to pass order dated 20-9-1976 and issue Transfer Order in favour of defendant

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside findings of two Courts below, as after repeal of Settlement Laws ultimate jurisdiction only vested with Civil Court and plaintiff had rightly challenged Transfer Order before Civil Court having been passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner without jurisdiction

Suit filed by plaintiff was not only competent but Civil Court had also jurisdiction

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

When question had arisen at any point of time about status of property, it was the Chairman of Evacuee Trust Property Board alone who, under Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, was competent and empowered to determine and decide the question

Civil court in view of bar contained in S.14 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, had no jurisdiction in the matter

Courts while considering and appreciating evidence of parties on record had come to the conclusion that property was not established by defendant to be attached to any charitable, religious trust etc. and was not an evacuee trust property

Such determination was within the exclusive domain of the Chairman and adjudication thereof by courts was an encroachment and circumvention on his empowerment, therefore, bar of S.14 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, was duly attracted

Judgments and decrees passed by all the courts below were set aside and suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction

Appeal was allowed.

According to paragraph 28 of Settlement Scheme-I, Notified Officer/Deputy Settlement Commissioner was authorized to determine the price according to notification, dated 14-11-1974, under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

In item No.6, it was clearly laid down that Deputy Secretary (Rural), Board of Revenue, would exercise powers of Notified Officer

Matter relating to determination of price fell within the definition of "pending matters" and Notified Officer at the relevant time had the jurisdiction to assess the price in accordance with law

Notified Officer exercised his powers validly in accordance with law and petitioner failed to establish that the Notified Officer exercised powers not vested in. him or that in exercise of his powers he acted illegally or with material irregularity

High Court declined to interfere in the price of property in question determined by Notified Officer

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in 1962, in favour of predecessor-in-interest of defendants and plaintiffs assailed the same in year, 1978, after the death of predecessor-in-interest of both the parties

Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of plaintiffs and such findings of fact by two courts below were maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Jurisdiction of civil court was barred to entertain suit involving disputes of title relating to evacuee property

Civil court was supposed to decide point of jurisdiction before proceeding with the case on merits

High Court had omitted to attend the issue relating to S.25 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which was no more available to plaintiffs, after repeal of evacuee laws in year, 1974 and thus committed jurisdictional error

Civil court, in view of principles of Settlement Laws, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide matter whereby it had adjudicated dispute relating to title of property

Orders passed by Settlement Authorities under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had attained finality and civil court had no jurisdiction either to determine character of property under settlement law or entitled a person for allotment due to statutory bar

Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in favour of predecessor-in­interest of defendants exclusively in July, 1962 and none had objected in such regard

Matter stood concluded which was questioned by plaintiffs by filing civil suit in year, 1978 i.e. after eighteen years

Suit filed by plaintiffs was not maintainable and judgments passed by courts below were without lawful authority which were set aside and suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner purchased plot in dispute on 15-1-1968 through auction, which was confirmed on 2-2-1968 and `Permanent Transfer Deed' was issued in his favour on 31-12-1968

Petitioner after 35 years approached D.O. (Rev.) for entering mutation of said plot who having failed to do so, directions had been sought by the petitioner through constitutional petition to be issued for entering the mutation in consequence of the `Permanent Transfer Deed' issued in favour of the petitioner

Validity

Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was not tenable for the reasons; that it totally suffered from lathes i.e. a dead matter of 1968 had been prayed to be made alive after 35 years; that petitioner had already approached the civil court for the redressal of his grievance, and civil suit filed by the petitioner was with­drawn

Petitioner, in circumstances, was debarred from filing the constitutional petition as land on 3-1-1958 had since vested in the Province of Punjab, and was transferred to the Provincial Government with the approval of the Central Government; and it had gone out of compensation pool and was not available for allotment

When the land in question was not part of the compensation pool and it ceased to be an evacuee land, the Settlement Authorities had no powers to deal with the same

Auction of by Settlement Authorities, if any, could not be valid, legal and within jurisdiction.

Appellate Court dismissed plaintiff's appeal while observing that plaintiff was tenant under defendant, who could seek his eviction by invoking provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Validity

Chief Settlement Commissioner had passed allotment order pursuant to a remand order of Supreme Court

Validity of allotment order was examined by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction and finally by Supreme Court and was found to be valid

Plaintiff had never applied for transfer of suit property

Plaintiff had knowledge of allotment order and had acknowledged defendant as his landlord

Plaintiff by operation of law had become tenant of' defendant

Impugned judgments and decree were based on cogent evidence and correct appreciation of law and facts

High Court dismissed revision petition.

'Transfer in favour of appellant and predecessor-in-interest of respondent had attained finality in the years 1961 and 1963 respectively

Other respondents claiming possession from 1972, 1973 and 1974 respectively filed Transfer Forms in the year 1973 under Settlement Scheme No.VIII, and were transferred certain portions of house in dispute, and High Court upheld such transfer

Validity

Transfer of house in dispute in favour of appellant and predecessor-in-interest of respondent in years 1961 and 1963 had put at rest the controversy between the said transferees then

Had other respondents any complaint against such transfer'they would have joined the arena much before and not waited till the year 1973 to claim protection of their alleged possession

Absence of such respondents to put in appearance in the case made doubtful the nature of their alleged possession

Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of High Court, and upheld the transfer in favour of appellant and predecessor-in-interst of respondent.

Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred property in dispute in favour of respondent treating the same as evacuee property

Appellants filed writ petition against such transfer contending that same was non-evacuee

High Court refused to give relief on the ground that appellants had themselves unsuccessfully applied in the past for its transfer as evacuee property, thus, they could not dispute its nature

Validity

Such findings could not be equated with a finding about the nature of property in dispute

Applicability of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to property to dispute was not considered at any point of time between year, 1947 to 1974, when Act of 1958 was repealed and only pending matters were to be dealt with under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Supreme Court set aside orders of High Court and Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and remanded the case to Notified Officer for decision of questions: as to whether property in dispute was ever declared as evacuee; whether appellants had actually filed application form and matter could be deemed pending for being dealt with under evacuee laws; and whether "well" could be treated as "evacuee property".

Suit property was an industrial unit before partition and the same was purchased by father of plaintiff vide sale-deed which had been registered prior to the cut off date prescribed under Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957

Subsequently the property was transferred to plaintiff vide registered gift deed in her favour by her father

Defendant claimed to be owner of the suit property allotted as agriculture land on the basis of R.L.II

Both the Courts below decided the matter in favour of plaintiff

Validity

Manner in which the industrial concern, if treated to be evacuee and brought lawfully into compensation pool, was to be disposed of, the same was stated in detail in the Schedule to Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

If the Custodian had treated the suit property as evacuee, or for that matter by Rehabilitation Authorities, the same could never have been transferred as agriculture land vide transfer order made in favour of the defendant

As the suit property was never treated as evacuee at any time either before or after 1-1-1957, i.e. the date prescribed in Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, the transfer order in favour of defendant was void ab initio

Suit property could not have been transferred in the manner prescribed in Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

High Court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

Municipal Committee in the year 1967, filed suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of disputed plot as it was part of public road and was being used as such since the year 1865, and in alterative, its title stood perfected on account of adverse possession for more than 60 years

Suit was resisted on the grounds that disputed plot was owned by non-Muslim evacuee, which was purchased by predecessor of petitioners in open auction held in year 1961 by Settlement and Rehabilitation Department and no objection was raised by Municipal Committee at that time; and the question, whether it was evacuee or non-evacuee property could only be decided by Custodian of Evacuee Property under the provisions of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957

Trial Court referred the matter to Custodian, who held the property as non evacuee

Suit, therefore, came up for the determination before Trial Court and was decreed

Appellate Court upheld the decree

Contention that unless Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of predecessor of petitioners was set aside, no declaration could be granted in favour of Municipal Committee

Validity

On objection taken in written statement by predecessor of petitioners, matter was referred to the Custodian under S.41 of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, who found that disputed plot was not evacuee, thus, it did not form part of compensation pool under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and it was plainly beyond the jurisdiction of Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities to deal with the same

Suit of Municipal Committee was rightly decreed

Disputed plot was part of public road, thus, it could not be in exclusive and hostile possession of Municipal Committee

High Court maintained the decree granted to Municipal Committee with modification that its prayer of adverse possession would be deemed to have been dismissed.

Where the petitioners did not challenge the original allotment letter in favour of the respondents through the instant petition, the same was liable to be dismissed

Held, when the basic foundation was in field then superstructure should not fall on the ground

Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was temporary allottee and such allotment was not inheritable

High Court declined to interfere with the allotment made in favour of the respondents

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

No property could be 1treated as evacuee after 1-1-1957.

Petition dismissed.