Settlement Scheme No. VIII

Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the contention that High Court while remanding the case to the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner failed to take into consideration that the application filed by the respondent for re-opening of the case was made on 30-10-1974 after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 which came into effect on 1-7-1974 and thus, said application, could not be treated as pending case within the scope of S.2 of the Repealing Act so as to give jurisdiction to the Board of Revenue to reopen the case.

'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.

Disputed properly was allotted to the respondent and without having complied the provisions of para. 2 of the Settlement Scheme No. VIII, the Authorities cancelled the allotment and auctioned the property

Settlement Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the auction on the ground that the mandatory requirements for cancellation or resumption of the property transferred were not complied with

Validity

Transferee could not be saddled with the penal consequences, unless and until strict compliance in letter and spirit of the provisions of para. 2 of the Settlement Scheme No. VIII was made as such the same was a prerequisite for cancelling and resuming the property

Only the valid cancellation and resumption of the proper would make it available for disposal through other means

Respondent in order to avoid cancellation and resumption had made payment and cleared the entire balance on the date when the auction in favour of the petition had not yet been confirmed

Where whole of the transfer price had been paid, the auction was wrongly confirmed in favour of the petitioner

Settlement Commissioner had rightly interfered in the revisional jurisdiction and set aside the auction

No illegality or jurisdictional error had been committed by the Commissioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Shops in dispute were transferred to the transferee through open auction conducted by Settlement Authorities and Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to the transferee after adjustment of auction price from compensation book of the transferee

After about twenty-three years from issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the transferee, an application filed by Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property the Permanent Transfer Deed issued to the transferee was cancelled by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board treating the shops in question as Evacuee Trust Property

Validity

Nothing was on record to substantiate the claim of Administrator or Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property that the shops were attached to any Evacuee Trust Property

Payment of rent even if proved to have been made by the transferee under pressure would detract nothing from her status as transferee of shops from the Settlement Department

Shops which had never been declared as Evacuee Trust Property before the target date of 1-1-1957, could not be treated so thereafter especially when at no point of time neither any such objection was raised by functionary of Evacuee Trust Property nor auction proceedings had been challenged before any Competent Authority

Mere mention in some record that the shops were attached to a Shivala Committee, was not sufficient to bestow the status of Evacuee Trust Property upon said shops in the absence of a trust deed or any other document declaring the shops to Evacuee Trust Property

Action Authorities under Evacuee Trust Property in not treating the transfer in favour of the transferee to be valid was struck down being illegal.

Filing of revised forms on the basis of alleged possession on a part of the property in question confirmed the fact that petitioners had knowledge of rejection of their earlier forms on 26-5-1967

Petitioners having not paid any of the public dues or the rent, their possession of the part of the property became unlawful and disentitled them to any allotment of the property in question.

Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 30-7-1976 cancelled transfer in favour of petitioner due to non-payment of transfer price

Respondent, on resumption of property from petitioner, filed Form under Settlement Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977

Petitioner on coming to know about passing of order, dated 30-7-1976, filed application for its recalling, which was accepted by Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 26-6-1978, who not only recalled resumption order, dated 30-7-1976, but in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) vide separate order of even dated i.e. 26-6-1978 rejected Form of the respondent

Respondent filed revision petition against rejection of his Form before Administrator (Residual Properties) under para. 31 of Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, but he did not challenge order, dated 26-6-1978, whereby resumption order, dated 30-7-1976 was recalled

Administrator (Residual Properties) accepted revision petition and set aside both the orders passed on 26-6-1978 by same officer in his capacity of Deputy Settlement Commissioner and. Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), and remanded the case for disposal of Form filed by respondent

Validity

Resumption order, dated 30-7-1976 having been passed at the back of petitioner was illegal and void ab initio being violative of principle of natural justice and provisions of para.2 of Settlement Scheme No.VIII

Subsequent order, dated 26-6-1978 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner recalling resumption order had attained finality in absence of challenge thereto before higher forum including High Court

Revision against such order was not even competent after repeal of Settlement Laws

Property was no more available after recall of resumption order, thus Form of respondent had rightly been rejected and his revision petition filed against rejection of his Form had no merits

Scope of such revision petition was limited to the extent of validity of order, dated 26-6-1978 passed by Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) and while hearing such petition, Administrator (Residual Properties) could neither go into validity of order, dated 26-6-1978 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner nor had jurisdiction to sit in judgment over an order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner

Administrator (Residual Properties) through impugned order had restored an illegal and void ab initio order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30-7-1976 which was not permissible under the law

Constitutional petition was accepted and impugned order passed by Administrator ( Residual Properties) was set aside.

Occupant of shop, prior to the repeal of Settlement Laws, had submitted his form under Settlement Scheme No.VIII and after thorough probe he having been found in occupation, was transferred the same and P.T.D. was issued accordingly

High Court, held, was justified in not interfering in the matter in circumstances.

Property in question occupied by its occupant in 1958 was purchased by petitioner and submitted B.S. Form under Settlement Scheme No.VIII for its transfer

Authorities rejected the Form on ground that property was occupied by the petitioner after the target date viz. 1-1-1976

Validity

Petitioner in his capacity as assignee of original occupant was in possession of property and was entitled for its transfer as being assignee from the original occupant

Possession of petitioner was very much covered under definition of "possession" as given in Cl. (i) of Part I (Chap.I) of Settlement Scheme No.VIII Scheme For the Management and Disposal of Available Properties, 1979 and his possession was established long before the target date (1-1-1976)

High Court, in settlement cases, while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution would try whenever possible, to adjust and accommodate as many displaced persons as possible

Order passed by Authorities was declared to be illegal and case was remanded to be decided afresh after affording parties the opportunity of hearing without dislodging the occupants from the portions in their respective possession.

Order passed by Settlement Commissioner/Administrator Residual Properties was upheld by High Court observing that it was correctly held by Administrator, Residual Properties that Supreme Court had not remanded case (as contended by appellants) but had only 'observed that effect and scope of order of Settlement Commissioner could be examined by Settlement hierarchy only

High Court, while declining to grant relief to appellants, had observed that they had acquiesced in transfer in favour of respondents through compromise; having attorned to respondents for a long period and that appellants had not come to Court with clean hands

Such facts having not been controverted by appellants, appeal against judgment of High Court was not maintainable.

Claim of petitioners for preservation of quota of teachers children and on kinship basis for admission in First Year of F.A./F.Sc. classes, was not based upon any legal right

All citizens of whatever status in society possessed equal rights in terms of Arts. 2, 2A & 25 of the Constitution

One section of society, thus, could not be treated differently than other citizens

Reservation of seats whether for teacher's children, kinship, or for extra curricular activities were discriminatory, thus, creating bickerings and opening doors for irregularities

Teachers children could not be given any preferential rights over those children, who showed better performance in examinations and ranked higher in merit

Government was advised .by High Court to consider doing away all kinds of reserve seats in matter of admission in educational institutions at all level

Plea for Preservation of seats for teachers children and those on kinship basis was, thus, not maintainable in circumstances.

Provision of para.3-A was added in Settlement Scheme No. VIII on 15-12-1966 before order for cancellation of transfer of property was made on 27-11-1967

Order for cancellation of transfer of property in favour of transferee would not be treated as final and effective till the same was served upon transferee in terms of para. 3-A, Settlement Scheme No.VIII

Transferee was entitled to avoid legal effect of said order and render the same ineffective by making payment within 30 days

Such order having not been served upon transferee, she remained entitled to maintain transfer of property in her favour till service of said order upon her and availing of 30 days to make payment of balance amount, therefore, orders in question, regarding cancellation of property from her name and resumption of same remained ineffective and did not become final or operative in order to justify inclusion of such property in the list of those properties which were undisposed of and available for disposal under Settlement Scheme No. VIII

Compliance of provision of para. 3-A, Settlement Scheme No. VIII was necessary to deprive transferee and her heirs after her death of ownership rights in property as transferees, therefore, subsequent orders for inclusion of such property in list for auction were void being superstructure raised on void and ineffective orders

Held, it was obligatory upon Settlement Authorities to have considered the claim of appellant on merits in juxtaposition with that of respondent's particularly, when appellant's C.H. Form had not been earlier considered and disposed of on account of act or omission by Court, -juasi-judicial Tribunal or even Administrative Authority

No party could be made to suffer in any manner by any act or omission of Court or Tribunal.

Settlement Authorities having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter within their competence, Settlement Commissioner did not pass any final order but remitted matter back for elucidation of certain points

Such remittance of case whether could affect the very jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities one way or the other

Leave to appeal was granted to consider such question.

Contest for entitlement of shop in question, between petitioner on the strength of her possession and respondent on the basis of order passed by Settlement Authority whereby same was transferred to him for specified amount

Settlement Authorities had not denied offer made to respondent for purchase of said shop in lieu of specified amount

Dispute related only to payment of consideration

Respondent had established on record tendering of agreement of association between him and other respondents and adjustment of amount from the compensation book in lieu of price for the shop and it was the function of Settlement Authorities to make necessary alteration in their record

Respondent had nothing to do further in the matter of adjustment

Petitioner having applied much after the order of Settlement Authority whereby shop in question, was offered for specified price to respondent, her prayer for transfer of shop could not be considered as the same was not available for transfer

Order of allotment in petitioner's favour, being in ignorance of earlier order of Settlement Authority, duly accepted and acted upon by respondent, was, thus, without lawful authority and jurisdiction

High Court, had, after consideration of factual and legal aspect of the case; correctly arrived at the conclusion that orders of Settlement Authorities regarding shop in question, in favour of petitioner were without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Finding of High Court being correct same did not warrant interference

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Petitioner had already paid 80 percent of the total price when Settlement Authority directed her to pay the balance amount within thirty days

Petitioner failed to deposit balance amount within 30 days but deposited the same thereafter; and no balance of transfer price was left against her

Settlement Authority meanwhile cancelled the transfer order in favour of the petitioner and transferred property in question, in favour of respondent

Validity

Proviso to para. 2, Settlement Scheme VIII in conjunction with para. 17 of the Scheme postulates that where in case of a transfer of house, transferee had paid 25 percent of sale price, then if arrears remain, then same could be recovered as arrears of land revenue and transfer on that ground could not be set aside

Petitioner having deposited more than 80 percent of transfer price when order for cancellation of transfer was passed, same was not warranted and was consequently set aside.

Cancellation of auction in favour of successful bidder for non-payment of bid price could be treated as an intimation to petitioner

Transfer of property in question, after nearly three years from the date successful bidder gave his bid was, thus, in consonance with law.

Petitioner had earlier filed a Constitutional petition challenging. such transfers but that Constitutional petition was dismissed for won-prosecution

Petitioner instead of seeking restoration, thereof had filed another Constitutional petition

No explanation was put forth as to why earlier Constitutional petition was not pursued

High Court was, thus, justified in not granting any relief in the subsequent Constitutional petition

No case was made out for interference with said decision

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Unless and until such mode was adopted, property in question, could neither be resumed nor could be deemed to be available property for purpose of disposal under Resumed Property Scheme.

Possession of an evacuee property as a tenant, whether constitutes entitlement to transfer on the basis of such possession

Any person in possession of evacuee property as tenant under another person who was applicant for transfer of same, could not claim any independent right for transfer of said property as he could not be deemed to be in possession of same in his own right.

Petitioner had not submitted any application for transfer of property in question, in terms of para. 8, Chap. III of Settlement Scheme No.VIII

Petitioner, thus, could not claim property in question which had already been transferred in favour of respondent under a valid claim and such order of transfer having attained finality.

Questions as to whether Khasra number in question containing plots was part of compensation pool or not; whether such Khasra number was acquired by means of Notification by the Governor of Punjab under S.42, Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922; whether plots in question, were not evacuee property and whether transferees had submitted forms for the transfer of plot in their possession to Settlement Authorities under Settlement Scheme No.VIII being questions outside the domain of Civil Courts, decision rendered by Trial Court as also that of First Appellate Court on said questions were wholly without jurisdiction and were tainted with patent illegality

Decision of Courts below thus, could not be sustained

Case was remanded to Trial Court with direction to formulate questions in terms of S.41(2), Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 and send them to Notified Officer concerned for adjudication in accordance with law.

Finding of fact had been given by Settlement Authorities that disputed area in possession of contesting-respondents was not a part of vacant plot which was auctioned by Authorities in favour of petitioners, but in fact was built up much before independence

Respondents were displaced persons and had filed N.C.H. Forms for transfer of same in their own rights

Respondents, in circumstances, could not be deprived of property in their physical possession

Competent Authority was directed to transfer property in dispute to the respondents on their Forms.

Petitioners' forms for transfer of premises which were under their occupation for the last forty-four (44) years were rejected

Orders of rejection of forms for transfer of premises were declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Notified Officer was directed to transfer portions of plots to petitioners according to their possession against price to be determined in accordance with law.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether non-confirmation of mortgage in favour of appellants deprived them of the right to claim transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No.VIII and whether the tenants inducted by appellants as unconfirmed mortgagees of property could be given preference over them in the matter of transfer.

Fact that appellant's father was a transferee under Settlement Scheme No.I or his brother under Settlement Scheme No.VIII, would not be a ground for disentitling appellant, a claimant for residual property.

Portion of property in question, allocated to some auction-purchasers was resumed for non-payment of their portion of auction amount

Original bid being one and joint, resumed portion would be offered to other joint purchasers, and same could not be deemed to be available property.

Petitioners' Constitutional petition against cancellation of their P.T.O. was dismissed by High Court for non-prosecution

Application for restoration of Constitutional petition was also dismissed, as. also their Intra Court Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether hearing by High Court on specified date despite notification issued by Federal Government declaring that day as a public holiday suffered from any legal infirmity and if not, whether non-appearance of petitioners or their counsel amounted to gross negligence which called for penalty of dismissal of their petition

Petitioners were permitted on oral request for treating present petition against decision of Single Judge, if ultimately it was held that Intra Court Appeal was not competent

Petitioners were allowed to file application for condonation of delay.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions, firstly whether, application alleged to have been filed by petitioner under Settlement Scheme No.VIII was not in fact filed and secondly, whether property in dispute was not "available", property as same stood auctioned in favour of respondent.

Petitioner had contended that transfer of shop in dispute in his favour was perfectly valid because respondent had only been transferred an unregistered factory and not shop which was an independent unit

Contention that if the question of entitlement of petitioner to submit Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and his possession over the property was not at all gone into by the Settlement Authorities, the proper course for the High Court was to have had the case remanded, required consideration

Leave to appeal was granted.

Property in dispute was put to auction previously on numerous occasions, but every time bid fetched was much below the reserve price

On inviting tenders under Scheme, appellant participated in negotiation and gave highest bid, but same was rejected by Chief Settlement Commissioner who ignored previous background of case

Discretion vested in Chief Settlement Commissioner was to be exercised justly, fairly and in accordance with law, having regard to its object and policy and not arbitrarily and capriciously while accepting or rejecting bid depending upon facts and circumstances of each case

Chief Settlement Commissioner in ignoring previous background of case and in rejecting bid offered by appellant, having violated provisions of Scheme, case was remanded to Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement) to decide afresh in accordance with law.

Respondent, in earlier round of litigation, remained unsuccessful and his form for allotment of property was rejected by Settlement Authorities

Respondent's constitutional petition against rejection of his form for allotment of property in question, was rejected and order passed by High Court attained finality for, no appeal/revision was filed against the same

Respondent in present Constitutional petition, could not take plea that transfer order in favour of petitioner was null and void and without jurisdiction as he would be estopped on the principle of estoppel.

High Court, in earlier round of litigation had remanded case to Chief Settlement Commissioner for determining entitlement of petitioner but question of entitlement remained unsettled in those proceedings

Post remand order of Settlement Commissioner wherein High Court's direction relating to entitlement of petitioner to property in question was not complied with, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Case was remanded to Chief Settlement Commissioner for determining entitlement. of petitioner to the transfer of property on the application filed by it, in accordance with law.

Compensation book, could not be treated to be bogus and as. such direction to pay the price again could not be made after repeal of Evacuee Laws

Assuming that such compensation book had been treated/declared by a competent authority as bogus, before the repeal of evacuee laws, still the P.T.D. could not be cancelled. but only the price could be recovered as arrears of land revenue as per provisions contained in para. 7, Settlement Scheme No.VIII.

High Court rejected petitioner's Constitutional petition holding that disputed flat was a distinct property and that as petitioners were not entitled to more than one house, P.T.D. in respect of disputed flat could be ignored as its transfer was obtained in contravention of law

Petition for leave to appeal

Held, disputed flat being a distinct and separate unit could not have been transferred to the occupant of the other flat in the first place and the transfer of two flats to petitioner was indeed in contravention of law

High Court having passed a fair, just and equitable order, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused to grant leave to appeal.

Record showed that father of petitioner and father of respondent were in possession of two separate portions and such portions were given separate numbers by Municipal Committee; that in 1952, both were jointly allotted the portions of house in their possession

Petitioner had been living alongwith his father in the disputed portion

Petitioner was thus in possession of disputed portion before crucial date i.e. 20th December, 1958 and was thus entitled to its transfer under Settlement Scheme No.VIII

Petitioner was entitled to seek advantage of possession of his father who obtained possession of disputed portion under order of allotment by competent authority.

Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order was that property in possession of appellant, a local and old tenant, should be included in the auction list

Such aspect of the case was completely ignored by Settlement Authorities and escaped notice of High Court as well

Held, in such view of the matter and in absence of any other applicant with a superior right, appellant could not be denied transfer of such property

Appeal was accepted and property deemed to have been transferred to appellant at the prescribed price in accordance with law.

Transfer of property-Question involved in controversy between parties purely of fact, question being whether there were two properties or one, and whether property transferred to respondent was same which was being claimed by petitioner

Settlement Authorities acting within their competence held, that property of which petitioner was seeking transfer was not available property and that property had already been transferred to respondents and that decision not having been challenged in Settlement hierarchy at the relevant time had attained finality against petitioner-Decision given being, in accord with law and no question of law requiring further examination, leave to appeal refused.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider, firstly, as to whether under Chap. 11, para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII it was incumbent upon Settlement Authorities to serve notice on appellants of cancellation of auction in their favour and that since this had, not been done, re-auction was illegal; and secondly as to whether without prior legal resumption of plot in dispute could it be considered as available for re-auction and fresh transfer.

Petitioner seeking review admitting that copy of N C H form submitted was not traceable on record nor was the duplicate available with him

Not possible to ascertain with any degree of exactitude as to what part of property, petitioner was actually desirous of obtaining in transfer

Part of property not in petitioner's occupation could be deemed to be not available for transfer within the meaning of Settlement Scheme No. VIII

No ground for review having been made out petition was dismissed.

Property became available for transfer when it was resumed on account of the failure of auction-purchaser to pay the balance of the auction price

Auction-purchaser paid the balance within one month of the order of resumption and property was restored to him

Held. property being not "available" for transfer, could not be transferred to the petitioners on their N. C. H. Form and it was rightly restored to respondent.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether by upholding the transfer of disputed shop in favour of contesting respondents, High Court had not by its judgment overlooked the provisions of para. 3-A of Settlement Scheme No.VIIl.

Vested right having been accrued to auction-purchaser, it would be sheer injustice to deprive him of his valuable right in the context of a dubious Form existing on record which was not established to have been filed before the auction date

High Court was, therefore, not justified to order the transfer of the house to respondent and same was set aside in appeal.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Upper storey of house allotted to contesting respondent by Settlement Authority on direction of High Court

High Court in previous litigation wherein appellants were not party had passed such order on consent of parties viz. allottee of ground portion and the respondent

Such respondent had not filed any N.C.H. Form for allotment of same

Appellants having applied under Scheme NO.VIII claimed transfer of that portion of upper storey which was in their possession

Appellant's entitlement to allotment of portion in his possession

Settlement Authority did not appear to have applied its mind to the question whether or not contesting respondent had filed N.C.H. Form, for what impressed the Authority was, that there was a clear direction from High Court to transfer the upper storey to him and the Authority proceeded to do so

Apart from the contention whether such respondent had or had not filed N.C.H. Form, appellants being not a party

Petitioners could not successfully challenge the order of transfer on short ground that same had attained finality and had never been challenged within a reasonable time

Matter was hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction

Finding of fact not within scope of Constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had no locus standi to raise any factual controversy

Party could not be penalised for the negligence of the other party

Petition dismissed in circumstances.

Property in dispute for which petitioner claiming to be in joint possession had filed form for its transfer, was partly evacuee and partly non-evacuee-Authority keeping matter pending so far as entitlement to parties was concerned, gave parties direction to approach Civil Court to seek partition of property in dispute

Direction of Authority of approach Civil Court for partition of property without final determination of their entitlement, held, was of no legal basis- Question as to which portion would fall to the share of petitioners and which to non-evacuee, would arise only when shares of parties were duly determined by Authority and not before

In absence of such determination by Authority, Civil Court was not competent to partition the property between parties and petitioners also would have no locus standi to approach Civil Court unless and until a transfer order was made in their favour.

Paras. 12, 14, 16 & 17??Properties transferred or likely to be transferred under Settlement Scheme No?VIII??Adjustment of outstanding amount of transfer to be worked out??In case of default of payment, resort to be had to penal provisions of the Scheme as enunciated in para. 17 of the Scheme??Board of Revenue's powers to work out adjustments, receive balance amount and to penalise defaulters stated.

Subsequent to such transfer Authority on assumption that some amount had not been paid, by petitioner, resumed property, and transferred same to respondent issuing him P.T.D.

When mistake was subsequently realized by Authority, order of resumption was withdrawn and case was sent to Administrator (Residual Property) for cancellation of subsequent transfer made in favour of respondent, but Administrator refused to cancel same on ground that he had no jurisdiction to do so as P.T.D. had been issued in favour of - respondent

Property earlier transferred to petitioner for which full payment was made to the satisfaction of Settlement Authority, held; could not be resumed and transferred subsequently to any other person, and P.T.D. issued to such other person would be illegal which could be cancelled being without lawful authority

Petitioner would be entitled to remain in peace in property which earlier was transferred to him.

Authority after spot inspection in presence of petitioner as well as perusing record, recorded finding of fact that property in dispute had no concern whatsoever with property transferred to petitioner, but was a separate unit

Investigation against such finding of fact, held, could not be undertaken in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

Transfer of property-Matter remaining under litigation for the last ten years between wife of petitioner and respondent who was the original transferee and was in possession of the property

Supreme Court, eventually remanded case

Tenor of Supreme Court order showed that in remand proceedings Deputy Settlement Commissioner was merely to consider entitlement of respondent inasmuch as Supreme Court itself held that wife of petitioner could not be deemed to be in possession of property in dispute and was not entitled to its transfer

Wife of petitioner never joined remand proceedings before Deputy Settlement Commissioner

Petitioner who challenged order passed in remand proceedings also never applied for being impleaded as a party nor he could do so under law but after Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed orders in said proceedings, petitioner intervened for the first time by making an application before Supreme Court that his NCH form under Settlement Schemes Nos. I and VIII be entertained as an informer-Settlement Commissioner rejected his application

Held, case before Settlement Commissioner arose out of remand by Supreme Court and petitioner not being a party in remand proceedings, and property in dispute having already been transferred to respondent and not available for transfer, N.C.H. Form of petitioner could not be entertained and was rightly rejected

Property was allowed to remain with respondent on basis of transfer already made in her favour due to her possession for a considerable long time.

Petitioner was transferred plot in question through auction after he paid transfer price and settlement fee and PTD was issued in his name

Petitioner then initiated proceedings of ejectment against respondent who was occupying property but the latter took the stand that he was in possession of said plot in capacity of transferee from Settlement Department

Transfer order in favour of respondent issued by Settlement Department showed that a condition was inserted therein that .order would be considered as non-existent if plot was found disposed of in favour of any other person

Report by Settlement Department revealed that petitioner was valid transferee of plot in question through auction and that plot was illegally and wrongly transferred later on to respondent

Petitioner was, however advised to move competent Court of law as Settlement Authorities had become functus officio and were unable to afford any relief to petitioner

Held, since plot in question had already stood transferred in name of petitioner its further transfer in name of respondent was against law and transfer documents issued to respondent were without lawful authority and of no legal effect.