Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS Respondent: DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
1988 S C M R 860
1988 S C M R 860
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner
versus
DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.1129 of 1980, decided on 21st February, 1988.
(From the judgment and order dated 9‑6‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.348‑R of 1976).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958 )‑
‑‑S.10 & Sched.‑‑Transfer of evacuee shop‑‑Settlement authorities in transferring the disputed shop to respondents could not, in circumstances of the case, be held to have acted illegally or without jurisdiction‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
A.R.Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Muhammad Azim Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Z.Khalil. Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
Date of hearing: 21st February, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to a shop which was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction held by the Settlement authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into an agreement of association with one Jalal Din whereby he surrendered half portion of the shop in favour of the latter. Consequently, a joint P.T.O. was issued in favour of the petitioner and Jalal Din. There is now no controversy about the share given to Jalal Din.
2. Admittedly, at the time when the auction took place the petitioner, apart from being a claimant himself, was also the attorney of respondent No.3. In November, 1963, he made a statement before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the effect that he had taken part in the auction as attorney of respondent No.3 and that the bid sheet should be corrected accordingly. On the basis of this statement, an Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the correction of the relevant record. Later, another P.T.O. was issued in favour of respondent No.3 and Jalal Din. This was done without cancellation of the first P.T.O. which had been issued in favour of the petitioner and Jalal Din.
3. There was prolonged litigation between the petitioner and respondent No.3 before the Settlement authorities over the portion in dispute. The petitioner did not disown his statement of November, 1963, but relied upon another agreement of association, applications, affidavits and power of attorney allegedly executed by respondent No.3 to show that he had transferred his share in favour of the petitioner. In the final round a Deputy Settlement Commissioner relied upon the statement of the petitioner of November, 1963, rejected the other documents produced by the petitioner and approved the P.T.O. issued in favour of respondent No.3 and Jalal Din. The Settlement Commissioner declined to interfere with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. It is to be noticed that the documents upon which the petitioner relies to show that respondent No.3‑had transferred his share in the shop in his favour have been described by respondent No.3 as forgeries. On the other hand, it has not been disputed by the petitioner that he had taken part in the auction merely as attorney e of respondent No.3 and that he had asked the Settlement authorities to correct the record accordingly. In the circumstances it is difficult to hold that in transferring the shop to respondent. No.3 and Jalal Din the Settlement authorities acted illegally or without jurisdiction: This petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such.
S.Q./M‑364/S Petition dismissed.