Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD VS Respondent: MIRAJ DIN AND Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs MIRAJ DIN AND Other Case No.: Civil Petition No. 909 of 1981 Appeal No: 8 of 1969 Date of Judgment:1982-03-30 Reported As: 1982 SCMR 1007 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER M. S. H. QURESHI, J. The property in question had been transferred to the respondents and a P. T. D. Issued in their favour 10-8-1963. The Evacuee Trust Property Board, however, moved an application in 1966 before the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, under section 4(3) 4 the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVI11 of 1958), seeking cancellation of the transfer of the property on the ground that it was evacuee trust property. The application was dismissed on 16- 1"-1968 on the finding that the property was not attached to any religious, chartable or educational trust for public use but was the private property of an evacuee The Board then moved the High Court in appeal under section 4(4) of act XXIII of 1958 During the pendency of the appeal, the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975) came into force, effective from 1-7-1974, section 10(I) (b) of which laid down that: An immovable evacuee trust property, if situated in an urban area and utilised bona fide under any Act for transfer against the satisfaction of verified claims in respect of which Permanent Transfer Deed were issued prior to June, 1968, shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and tie sale proceeds thereof shall be reimbursed to the Board and shall form part of the Trust Pool. The learned Judge of the High Court, in view of the above provision, held that no interference was called for and as such dismissed the appeal on 24-6-1981. The Board feeling aggrieved is now seeking leave to appeal 2. The contention, by reference to the provision of subsection (2) of section 10 of Act XIII of 1975, is that the question whether the transaction of transfer was bona fide or not was to be decided by the Chairman whose decision was final. But the contention is not relevant to the proceeding, which
---
## Page 2
ended in the impugned decision. It had been initiated by an applica--tion made under section 4(3) of Act XXVIII of 1958 upon the assertion that the property was evacuee trust property. The order passed by the High Court is, therefore, not open to exception. The petition is dismissed.