Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 10 , 2

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--- ----S. 10---Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)---Transfer of property, cancellation of---Property in dispute was duly transferred to petitioner---Respondent who was in occupation of that property at time of transfer, admitted that transfer in favour of petitioner, accepted himself to be tenant and started paying rent to petitioner in terms of rent deed executed by him in favour of petitioner---Settlement Authority after about 25 years of its transfer arbitrarily ordered that property in dispute had never been transferred to petitioner and after cancelling transfer, declared it to be available property and transferred same in favour of respondent---Property was duly transferred to petitioner on price which was demanded by Authority and paid by petitioner and respondent after admitting transfer had accepted him to be tenant under petitioner and had been paying rent for about 25 years in accordance with terms of tenancy---Held, it was not permissible, after nearly quarter of a century, for Authority to re-open the matter---Finding that property was available, perverse against record and without lawful authority altogether and could not be sustained. Sh Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioners. Jari Ullah Khan for Respondent No.1. Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1989.   The dispute relates to Chobara bearing Property No. 29 Ward No. 3 Faisalabad. It was transferred to Abdul Haq who has since died and is represented by his heirs as petitioners. He paid the transfer price Rs. 13,800 as price of the shop and Chobara. There was an adjacent property comprising of the same accommodation which was transferred to one Amin-ud-Din which was also assessed at Rs. 13,800. After the transfer of the property in favour of Abdul Haq, a notice was issued by him to the respondent No.1 since deceased and represented by his heirs intimating that he himself had become under the law owner of the property and the respondent No.1 his tenant. Later on, an ejectment application was filed by Abdul Haq against the respondent No.1. In the written…