IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J. --- Through this petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 10.10.2008.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 2-kanals vide three registered sale-deeds bearing No. 12242, dated 8.5.1985, Nos. 2822 and 2823, dated 29.4.1986 from one Mian Muhammad Yasin. It is claim of the petitioner that at that time N.I.C.F.C.
Was exempt from payment of stamp duty and petitioner got executed the sale-deeds in favour of N.I.C.F.C. After payment of entire sale consideration. Thereafter N.I.C.F.C. Executed a sale-deed dated 1st April 1989 for transferring the property in favour of the petitioner and the same was duly attested by the competent authority but due to scam came on the surface the sale-deed could not be registered. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in the office of respondent on 22.1.2008 for issuance of N.O.C. And execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner whereupon ,N.O.C. Was issued and petitioner was directed to deposit 2% liquidation charges amounting to Rs. 8,000/- vide order dated 12.3.2008 and in compliance of the order the petitioner deposited the said charges in the Bank of Punjab on 25.3.2008, but thereafter without any reason or legal justification the respondent has reviewed its earlier letter and through the impugned order dated 10.10.2008 dismissed the application of the petitioner and has passed order and passed the order for dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question.. '
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and unlawful, having been passed for extraneous consideration; that the application has been dismissed for issuance of N.O.C. On the ground that it was not filed within 30 days which was requirement of law as per defunct societies policy and other illegalities were introduced; that sale-deed was executed in favour of N.I.C.F.C. In order to avoid stamp duties and taxes; that the petitioner is in possession of the said property from the date of its purchase i.e. In the year 1986; that original sale-deed is in possession of the petitioner; and the 'record of the N.I.C.F.C. Does not disclose its ownership in favour of. Corporation; that in the written statement respondent No. 1 simply denied paras Nos. 1 & 4 and under Order VIII, Rules 4 & 5 of C.P.C. Such denial amounts to admission; that the respondent has not taken into consideration the fact that N.I.C.F.C. Never showed the said property of the petitioner' as its on property and this fact is not discussed in the impugned order; that the petitioner is poor person and if he is deprived of the property, he will have no remedy; that illiterate person are equal to Parda Nasheen ladies as it has been hold in PLD 1992 SC 1; that it is also held by Honourable Supreme Court in 2002 CLC 1209 that a person who is in possession of the property coupled with the original sale-deed is real owner and it could be Benami Transaction; that order has been passed in violation of Section 24-A of General Clauses Act; that Section 14 of the Cooperative Society Act is not applicable as N.I.C.F.C. Had no concern with the said property; that the petitioner was directed to make payment of liquidation charges which was paid and now respondents have reviewed their order but there is no authority of reviewing the order as it is settled law, and that instead of discussing the merits of the case the petitioner has been ousted only on technical grounds, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and may be set aside.
4.. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents opposes this petition on the ground that Section 14 is fully applicable in the present case; that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the property and he has to explain the delay in filing the application; that the impugned order has been passed after application of mind and this petition should be dismissed; that the petitioner has tried to do an unlawful act by evading the Government Taxes and dues; that the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 16882 of 2008 which has been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court by holding that the petitioner had not filed the petitioner within reasonable time as emphasized by Section 14 ibid.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents attached with this petition carefully.
6. After the perusal of the impugned order it is found that respondent/Chairman has not passed the order by taking into consideration the real points in issue. The delay of 14 years can be condoned as the petitioner is continuously in possession of the said property and original sale- deed is also in possession of petitioner. The respondent N.I.C.F.C. Had never shown the said' property in its ownership and P.C.B.L. Also not tried to disturb the possession of the said property which is retained by the petitioner . The petitioner is an illiterate person according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and if he had not filed the application within 30 days it can be ignored as it has been held in PLD 1990 SC 1, "That the illiterate person are equal to Parda Nasheen Ladies."
Even otherwise the petitioner was in possession of the property and N.I.C.F.C. Became defunct and it is not expected from illiterate person that he would file application within 30 days, hence the delay can be ignored in the present case. Even otherwise it has been held in lmtiaz Ahmad v.
Ghulam Ali and 2 others (PLD 1963 SC 382) that technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice and people should not be ousted on the ground of technicalities. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:--- "I must confess that having dealt with technicalities for more than forty years, out of which thirty years are at the Bar, I do not feel much impress with them. / think the proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoid unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy. The English system of administration of justice on which our on is based may be to a certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defect. Any system which by giving effect to one form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights in defective to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his."
Moreover the Superior Court have repeatedly promoted the idea of decision on merits instead of ousting the people on technical reasons and if the petitioner is owner of the property, his ouster from the said property only on the ground that he being illiterate person had not approached the respondent in time will not be appreciated by law. As regards the other ground taken by the respondent for dismissal of the application that the petitioner had evaded the duty and taxes, suffice it to say that relevant authority can initiate against the persons at fault for the recovery of the said dues alongwith penalty, but this Court while acting as a Cooperative Judge has no concern with the said question. At the most matter can be brought to the notice of Sub-Registrar where the sale-deed was executed but the petitioner cannot be deprived of his claim on this score alone, who claims to be in possession of the property continuously and original sale-deed is also in his possession whereas N.I.C.F.C. Had never claimed ownership over the said property. I have noticed that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and without discussing the material points, which is against the mandate given in Section 24-A of the General Clause Act.
Hence, this petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the respondent who .Shall decide the matter afresh within 30 days in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and discussing the merits of the case.