M. S. H. QURESHI, J: Haji Karim Bakhsh petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 2b-11-1976 whereby his regular second appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge, Multan, dated 2-7-1976 alarming a decree passed against him was dismissed
2. The disputes relate to a house which had been transferred to respondent Muhammad Inam Ullah and a P. T. O. And P. T. D. Had issued on 22-9-1960, and 27-6-1963 respectively, in his favour.
The case of the petitioner is that the house had been sold to Maula Bakhsh by the evacuee owner on 19-6-1947. Maula Bakhsh applied to the Custodian for confirmation of the sale in his favour but the Custodian did not accept the claim of sale though he allowedby order dated 6-12-1962, a sum of Rs. 6,000 according to learned counsel, as a charge against the property. Upon the death of Maula Bakhsh his legal representatives filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with the observation that they should move the Custodian. The Custodian, however, by his order dated 25- 7-1970 created an additional charge of Rs. 5,500.00 against the property. As respondent Muhammad Inam Ullah, the transferee, failed to pay the charge so created, the property was resumed on 21-12-1970 and later transferred by negotiation to the legal representatives of Maula Bakhsh who surrendered their, right in favour of the petitioner and upon his payment of the price, a P. T. O. Was issued in his favour on 25-2-1974. He then sent a notice of ejectment to Muhammad Inam Ullah, whereupon the latter brought a suit challenging the order of resumption dated 21-12- 1970, which suit was decreed in his favour as aforesaid.
3. It is contended that the resumption order was valid as Muhammad Inam Ullah had refused to pay the charge amount which had become part of the price of the house. The contention had been repelled by the Courts below for the reason that there was no authority of law to declare the P. T. D. As void document simply on the basis that certain portion of the transfer price was still payable by the transferee. The High Court further observed that the transfer of the property was complete when the document of permanent transfer was executed by the Department and that if there was any amount left unpaid due to inadvertence of the Department or otherwise, it could be claimed through the process of law. The view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable. Upon the issue of Notification under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1958, on 21-8-1959, the evacuee properties, had vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. There is nothing to show that the Custodian had created a charge against the property before it transfer in favour of Muhammad Inam Ullah. The order of the Custodian, dated 6-12-1962 has not been produced. In any case, Muhammad Inam Ullaht not having been a party to the proceeding before the Custodian, the order creating charge, if any, was not binding on him. Upon the issue of the P. T. D. On 27-6-1963, the property ceased to be in the Compensation Pool and as such the Custodian could not subsequently create any charge against it, nor could the Settlement Authority resume the property for failure to pay such charge.
Muhammad Inam Ullah's suit had, therefore, been rightly decreed.
4. The petition is thus found to have no merit and is accordingly dismissed.