Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mistri ABDUL AZIZ VS Respondent: Mistri MUHAMMAD YASIN AND Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Shahnawaz Khan, Muhammad Haleem Title: Mistri ABDUL AZIZ vs Mistri MUHAMMAD YASIN AND Other Case No.: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1591 of 1980 Date of Judgment:1981-12-22 Reported As: 1982 SCMR 1083 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM ACTG. C. J.-This petition relates to the transfer of plot No. 5/90, situate in Fateh Abad, a suburb of Faisalabad City. The respondents are the sons of the petitioner: This plot was transferred to them through a Provisional Transfer Order dated 28th of June, 1961. Its appears that the first respondent conveyed his rights in the plot to the peti--tioner by executing an agreement of association on 26th of April 1965, which was allegedly filed before the concerned settlement authority on 29th of April, 1965. Thereafter, the respondents entered into an agreement of association on 26th of April 1967, by which the first respondent conveyed his rights in the same plot to the second respondent and consequent thereto a P. T. D. Was issued in his favour. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 14th of July, 1967, purportedly under section 20 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili-- tation) Act, 1958, seeking for the cancellation of the P. T. D. In favour, of the second respondent. By letter dated 19th of February, 1972, the Chief Settlement Commissioner informed him that no order on the execu--tive side could be issued for the cancellation of the P. T. D. As it had gone out of the compensation pool. The petitioner, thereupon, challenged this order in the Lahore High Court through a Writ Petition which was dismissed on 30th of October, 1980. One of the pleas, which goes to the root of the case, taken before the High Court, is that the agreement of association in his favour was approved; but the petitioner failed to establish that it was duly filed and approved by any settlement authority. This being the case, the question of fraud does not arise as the first respondent was free to enter into the second agreement of association for the transfer of his rights in favour of the second respondent; and as the P. T. D. Had been issued
---
## Page 2
it assumed finality qua the transfer of the plot in his favour. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, justified in refusing to exercise his jurisdiction. The petition has no substance and is dismissed.