Transfer of Evacuee Property

Plaintiff preferred appeal against order rejecting plaint which was accepted and matter was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh

Validity

Held, that when the Settlement Department had stated that Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) had not been cancelled, no further adjudication was required, and no question of bar contained under O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. came into existence

Plaintiff filed another suit prior to the present suit on the assumption of cause of action that suit property was transferred to defendant illegally but Settlement Department made it clear that PTD was not cancelled, resultantly a new cause of action arose to them whereby only the possession of suit property was to be claimed and suit was also not hit by O.II, R.2, C.P.C. as on the basis of new cause of action present suit was filed

Argument of defendants that for final adjudication of civil revision record of Settlement Department be summoned was sufficient to dismiss civil revision

Civil revision was dismissed accordingly.

Applicant had claimed that, property in question was originally, transferred in favour of a female under Settlement Scheme No.1 being claimant displaced person, who sold it to another person, and finally it was purchased by applicant vide registered sale deed

Applicant wanted verification of title documents of the property

Settlement Department had reported that file of property in question was not available in the office

Name of evacuee owner of property (non-muslim) which existed in the revenue record, did not match with the name entered on the PTD

Office had reported that there was overwriting on the entries, which had made the document doubtful

Compensation Books, from which transfer price of the property was adjusted, neither were available with applicant nor in the official record

Challan regarding payment of price, was not verified by the Treasury Office

Applicant was given ample opportunity to provide requisite record in support of his version, but he could not produce the same

Contention of applicant that after issuance of PTD, the Settlement Department had become "functus officio", had no weight, because, if the transfer of property was obtained by practising fraud, order of transfer being void would remain open to scrutiny by forums concerned

Contention of the applicant that he was bona fide purchaser on the basis of registered deed was repelled, because credentials of the original transferee of the property in question, were not verified, which made the title defective

Applicant, who had come into the shoes of his vendor, could not be better off, and would sink and survive with him

Defective title could not become perfect with its transfer

Applicant was not entitled for issuance of certified copy of PTD in question and his application was dismissed, in circum-stances

Suit property was in possession of Central Government and stood in its name

Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation) was directed to take appropriate steps for disposal of the same as provided under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.

Evacuee property in dispute was ordered to be transferred in favour of transferee in year 1983 by competent authority and said transfer order had attained finality

Petitioner/transferee contended that his application pending before the court for the payment and issuance of Transfer Deed, be finalized

Transferee was entitled for benefit of the price assessment mechanism provided in the Chapter 1 of the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Evacuee Urban Properties (1977)

Application of the transferee for issuance of Transfer-Deed in respect of the property was accepted, at the price to be calculated in the terms of Para (L)(i & ii) of the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Evacuee Properties (1977), with 40% penalty, due to delay in payment of government dues

Authority, after calculation of price with penalty, was directed to issue challans for depositing amount under head No. G-11.226 "Deposit in favour of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab" and after verification of said deposited amount, Transfer Deed, would be issued in favour of the transferee.

House in dispute was placed in the Earmarking Scheme of Settlement and Rehabilitation Department and a female succeeded in earmarking

Said lady associated with her nephew by way of an Association Deed and surrendered all her rights in his favour and a P.T.D. for the same was issued in his favour

Later on, Settlement Department marked a portion of said house a separate number and made it available for auction, which action of the department was challenged by said transferee and finally Supreme Court accepted the claim of the transferee and disputed portion was restored in his favour

Executive District Officer (Revenue)/Notified Officer by way of impugned order recommended that the transfer of entire house be issued in favour of successors of transferee

Notified Officer passed impugned order after spot inspection and after hearing the parties

Notified Officer after examining the pros and cons of the case, jotted down the objection raised by the parties, had very comprehensively determined the question of the measurements of the excess area in question; and had rightly recommended the issuance of transfer order in favour of transferee of the house

In absence of any reason, the findings of fact recorded by the Notified Officer, could not be interfered with by High Court, in constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Settlement Commissioner maintained the transfer order made in favour of the respondents, which was concurred by the High Court vide impugned order

Concurrent findings of fact were to the effect that the respondents had made construction in dispute and not the evacuees

That being so, impugned judgment was unexceptionable

Even otherwise, having accepted the terms of the qualified order passed in constitutional petition filed by the respondents, petitioners were estopped to challenge the orders passed pursuant thereto.

Leave to appeal had been sought by the petitioner on the ground that constitutional petitions filed by the respondents, were not maintainable as alternate remedy was available to them under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967-7-Validity

Respondents admittedly were successors-in-interest of genuine allottees of property in one case and auction purchaser in the other and their title in respect of said properties remained unchallenged

Judgment of High Court, did speak of the cases of those P.T.Ds., which were issued till the issuance of notification dated 12-6-1988 dealing with exchange of evacuee property with State property

High Court did observe that said category of persons could be allowed to retain the property notwithstanding 'the notification of exchange dated 3-1-1958

P.T.Ds., with regard to properties subject matter of that petition were issued in 1964 long before notification dated 12-6-1988

Said judgment had attained finality as counsel for petitioner had not referred any judgment of the Supreme Court which could have interfered with said judgment

Case of the respondents squarely fell within the ambit of cases which had been adverted to in the operative part of judgment of the High Court

Respondents in' circumstances had rightly been granted relief through impugned judgment

Impugned judgment being unexceptionable, petition was dismissed.

Held: Transferee could hardly be blamed or his successors penalized for the default of the department in misplacing Compensation Book/relevant file

Held further: It was merely a conjecture that transferee-respondents were responsible for its loss.

Disposal of property between parties in violation of mandatory provisions of para. 1 of Schedule to Act (XXVIII of 1958)

Appellant, a claimant displaced person, despite being in prier possession, deprived of the portion in his possession for which proper form was submitted by him

Order impugned

Respondents' plea that transfer in their favour had attained finality and since P.T.D. had been issued, their case could not be re-opened, repelled

Transfer, order relied upon had been challenged in appeals

As no final order as per P.T.D. Rules was passed in favour of respondents in respect of their entitlement, no P. T. D could be issued to them

Held: Even if P.T.D. had been issued in the name of respondents, it-could not stand in the way of appellant because same was based on order which was void ab initio.

Being indivisible one residential unit, was transferred to one person who had preferential claim-Respondent having been rightly determined to be entitled to transfer of whole unit, no illegality found in order impugned

Appeal dismissed.

Falsity of allegation being established on record, order of Notified Authority set aside in writ jurisdiction -Petition for leave to appeal

Notified Authority having acted in excess of jurisdiction in re-opening matter, impugned order of High Court did not suffer from violation of any principle of law warranting interference

Leave to appeal refused.

High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere in matter.

High Court's view that after P.T.Ds. had been issued to parties, Settlement Authorities ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter, and that proper forum to settle dispute between them was civil Court, held, was correct

Leave to appeal refused.

Supreme Court refused to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction inter alia because it was not inclined to displace them at such late stage at behest of another refugee family who had already been transferred much larger unit.

Jurisdiction of civil Courts-Transfer of evacuee property having attained finality, its validity, held, could not be questioned in civil Court when there was no allegation of-fraud, misrepresentation or mala fides on the part of Settlement authorities and nature of property was also not in dispute.

Property found to be divisible by Letter Patent Bench and transferred to both occupants in accordance with their respective possession

Subsequent purchaser not joining as party in appeal, sought leave to appeal on ground that she was not given opportunity of being heard

Held, since petitioner had chosen to purchase property while it was subject-

Settlement Commissioner holding that property in dispute comprised two units and transferring one of the units to respondents

Order of High Court declining to interfere with such order not suffering from any infirmity

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Proceedings by Settlement Authorities in two channels, relating to same property-Transfer under Reservation Scheme and by auction sale

Leave to appeal granted to consider questions

That if properties were different; whether respondents' side had any locus standi to challenge transfer to petitioner's predecessor-in-interest notwithstanding objections qua transfer by reservation; that if property was same, whether reservation made in favour of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was unlawful and would not be given precedence over auction conducted subsequently and what was effect of late payment of price and whether late determination of price to be paid under reservation scheme would neutralise effect of delay

Servant quarters not being appurtenant to house, Settlement authorities were not only empowered but also justified in dividing premises and in treating quarters as separate houses

High Court, held, not justified in reversing their concurrent finding on such fact.

Settlement Scheme No.VIII, held, would not require filing of any specific Form-Transfer could be sought for, on making simple application.

Respondents found to have no right to transfer of plot and question of entitlement having been foreclosed by law declared by High Court and Supreme Court

Plot transferred by Settlement Commissioner in favour of petitioners

Order quashed in writ jurisdiction at instance of respondents

Leave granted to consider inter alia contention that respondents had no locus standi to challenge before High Court subsequent order of Settlement Commissioner transferring plot to petitioners.

Order of Chief Settlement Commissioner accepting Second Revision Petition on 31-5-1962 challenged as without jurisdiction

High Court upholding order taking view that official acts had a presumption of regularity

Under amended law only such second revisions instituted before Chief Settlement Commissioner wherein record of case had been called for before 13-1-1962 could be proceeded with

There being no positive order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner calling for record of case before specified date, his order, dated 31-5-1962 stood vitiated and being without lawful authority, set aside.

Keeping in view basic need for settlement of displaced persons, respondents allowed relief with regard to portion in their possession

Preference, held, was to be given to direct claimants over indirect claimants.

Petitioners claiming to have been in possession, to have raised construction over it and to have filed form for its transfer, moved Settlement Commissioner in 1974 and applied for suo motu revision in 1975

There being no justification to interfere with order of transfer after a decade and record not establishing submission of form by petitioners, revision declined

High Court refused to interfere with finding of departmental authorities and rejected assertion of petitioners

Order impugned

Petitioner having failed to establish filing of form lost their locus standi to question transfer

Finding not open to interference

Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

[Locus standi].

In ensuing litigation petitioner's claim to portion of W rejected on ground that he was bound by terms of compromise and could not seek any portion transferred to W

Order upheld by Supreme Court

Petitioner having no locus standi to claim any portion transferred in terms of compromise to W, his plea for grant of leave to appeal had no merits

Petition dismissed.

Leave granted to auction-purchaser of a prior date to examine whether High Court was justified in reopening case of auction and transfer of property -to appellant on a request made by local occupant of property long after auction was finalized, on ground that auction had taken place without notice to him.

Art. 185 (3)-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)-Transfer of evacuee property-Leave to appeal granted to examine whether High Court correctly assumed transfer of property to both contesting parties on basis of division thereof.

High Court dismissing writ petition of petitioner on finding that he was stopped to agitate matter on plea. different from that raised before Settlement Authorities and that matter having been concluded by order of Chief Settlement Commissioner by issuance of .P. T. D. in favour of respondent. Settlement' Authorities had no jurisdiction to re-open matter Head, order of High Court cannot be interfered with, in circumstances of case.

Art. 185 (3)-Transfer of evacuee property-Approach of Settlement Authorities to transfer plot in dispute on basis of possession not suffering from any legal infirmity and unexceptionable-Findings on questions of fact regarding allotment and possession-Held, cannot be interfered with.

Leave to appeal refused.

Leave to appeal refused.

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. and Settlement Scheme No.VII, para. 3-Transfer of Evacuee Property

Leave to appeal

Granted to consider question whether a person in actual physical occupation of property has superior entitlement to transfer over its allottee in view of terms of para. 3 of Scheme.

Leave to appeal refused.

Property in dispute in possession of appellant, local (non.-displaced person) Government servant standing transferred to respondent on 11-5-60 under P.T.O. dated 23-7-6U

Appellant clearing rent dues in respect of said property on 31-6-61 about one year after its transfer to respondent

Held, appellant being ineligible for transfer on date of clearance of rent dues, subsequent eligibility, after property ceased to be available for transfer, could not entitle him to disturb transfer in favour of respondent.

[Words and phrases].

Art. 185(3)-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.-Transfer of evacuee property Leave to appeal sought on ground that Settlement Authorities as well as High Court failed to give due weight to appellant's N. C. H. form.... and rejected same without affording him opportunity of hearing Granted to consider whether appellant was entitled to transfer of house in dispute which issue was not considered on merits by any authority.

Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) .pct (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10-Transfer of evacuee property

Major part of transfer price already paid by transferee Enhancement of valuation of property by Authorities contested by transferee-Matter still pending consideration before Settlement Authorities-Holding of auction of property in dispute during such pendency-Held, unwarranted and right based thereon devoid of validity-Case not fit one for interference.

Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXYIII of 1958), S. 10-Transfer of evacuee property-Parties, during proceedings before Supreme Court, entering into a compromise concerning mutual adjustment of portions of property transferred to them-Settlement Department directed to issue fresh transfer orders in terms of compromise of parties regarding disposal of property.

Art. 135 (3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched para. 4 and Earmarking Scheme V-Transfer of evacuee property-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider substantial questions of law regarding interpretation of provisions of para. 4 of Sched. to Act and Earmarking Scheme V.

Art. 185 (3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIH of 1958), S. 10 be Sched. Transfer of evacuee property - Common passage between two houses separately transferred to petitioners and respondent alongwith open surrounding land jointly owned by them

Leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether, in absence of demarcation of joint property, respondent could not base a right of easement (on common passage).

Arts. 185(3) & 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.-Transfer of evacuee property-Property in dispute already transferred and P. T. D. issued in favour of transferee-Respondent, after lapse of about 15 years since filing his KNCH form, applying to Settlement Authorities that his form was still pending but application was dismissed-High Court, on writ petition, holding respondent entitled to portion of property under his occupation

Leave to appeal-Granted to examine contention whether High Court, in accepting writ petition, bad erred in following Supreme Court's Judgment in Ali Muhammad's case P L D 1976 S C 37 instead of that in Inyatullah's case 1979 S C M R 487.

Contention that Deputy Settlement Commissioner only and not Additional Settlement Commissioner could decide question of entitlement-Held Not correct-Deputy Settlement Commissioner failing to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law, power, held, could ,certainly be exercised by appellate or revisional authority.

Sched.-Transfer of evacuee property-Transfer orders passed by Settlement authorities in presence of parties concerned, held, binding and no party can be allowed to reclaim from Rent Controller in a circuitous way same room which he lost before such authorities.

Sched., para. 8 read with Settlement Scheme No. I, paras. 5(d) & 8, second proviso-Transfer of evacuee property-Eacb one of claimants applying separately for transfer of shops and such shops not treated as one unit by any Settlement authority-Deputy Settlement Commissioner also not appearing to have applied his mind to second proviso of para. 8 of scheme-Deputy Settlement Commissioner in jointly transferring two shops to appellant and respondents, in circumstances, held, acted beyond letter of law, his order could not be regarded as final in absence of being appealed against and consequently Settlement Commissioner entitled to re-open question of transfer afresh.

Sched, I -Transfer of evacuee property-Finding of fact recorded by Settlement Commissioner that property in question could be treated as consisting of two parts and liable to be transferred as a building site and other as a house concurred in by High Court-Held, such determination very fair and equitable and cannot be interfered with.

Transfer of evacuee property-Local Commissioner appointed to demarcate two houses in dispute-Such Commissioner instead of demarcating boundary line separating two houses, proceeding to 'devise a more equitable way of dividing houses"-Held, report submitted by Commissioner, not being- in accordance with directions of Supreme Court, cannot be accepted.

Ss. 10 & 11 Transfer of evacuee property. Delegate of Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of powers under Ss. 10 & 11 making his adjudication entirely dependent on finding of a third Authority, without applying his own mind and without determining matter in issue himself-Held, a case of abdication of jurisdiction, surrender of discretion and failure to exercise jurisdiction possessed by such delegate Authority

[Jurisdiction].

S. 15 read with S. 20 and Settlement Scheme No. I-Transfer of evacuee property-Revision Jurisdiction - Whether minors or not, petitioners aware of transfer of property in name of their late father and themselves making application to Settlement authority for grant of time to pay arrears of price of property allotted-Petitioners given time to clear up arrears but no. steps taken by them to comply with such order for six gars-.Property having been subsequently validly disposed of by public auction and P. T. D. also issued-Settlement authority on revision application of petitioners after lapse of six years appointing a guardian for compliance with his order requiring clearance of arrears-Held: Settlement authority's order not in nature of a contract between Settlement Department and petitioners so as to enable them to take shelter behind their minority on relevant date - Settlement authority possessed no jurisdiction to re-open case after lapse of so many years and acted with material irregularity in exerc

- Art. 199 read with Art. 185(3)-Transfer of evacuee property-Writ-Settlement Commissioner appearing to have based his finding on agreement of association in its original form admittedly executed between parties-Such agreements not containing any interpolations as other agreement did-Effect, held, rightly given to such agreement by Settlement Commissioner and his order being eminently just and fair did not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction by High Court-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I.