Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 305 1983 SLD 305 1983 SCMR 1199
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 695 of 1980, decision dated: 13-08-1983.(From the judgment dated 1 3 1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No, 285/R of 1972)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND M. S. H. QURAISHI, JJ
Officer on Special Duty v. Bashir Ahmad 1977 S C M R 208 distinguished. Mirza A. Anwar Beg, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents

BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS

VS

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WITH POWERS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)-----Ss. 10 & 11 Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41 ¬Allotment of land Purchaser from an allottee To be saddled with knowledge that transaction of purchase was subject to incidence of Ss. 10 & 11 Held : Such purchaser cannot raise plea of protection on principle of S. 41, Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882). Muhammad Yamin v. Settlement Commissioner 1976 S C M R 489 and Maryam Begum v. Shah Muhammad 1976 S C M R 343 ref. ORDER M. S. H . QURAISHI, J. The petitioners are purchasers of land alloted to Salah ud Din etc. respondents 9 to 11 successors in interest of Rafi ud Din, the deceased right holder. The allotment was later found to be in excess of their entitlement and as such the excess was cancelled with the condition that the same should be restored if the objection filed by the allottees was decided in their favour. The High Court after checking from the Central Record Office came to the view that the entire allotment worked out to 1,414 units and as such there was an excess of allotment. On this finding the High Court further held "Any cancellation of allotment on the basis of that order or subsequent allotment or sale in favour of the respondents 9 to 12 (present petitioners), therefore, does not have any legal effect. The result is that the cancellation if any or subsequent allotment or sale of the same in favour of the respondents 9 to 12 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect." Aggrieved, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal. The contention raised on their behalf is that they being bona fide purchasers for value, the sale in their favour should not have been affected and they should have been protected on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Such a plea had been held by this Court as not available in Settlement matters. In Muhammad Yamin v. Settlement Commissioner (1976 S C M R 489), decided on 1 3 1974, it had been held "As to the argument that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value, it is clear that no protection be afforded to them when it has been found that their vendor had no right, title or interest in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492