Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1984SCMR 517

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

Citation1984SCMR 517
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 577 and 578 of 1978
Date1983-10-02
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain
ResultPetitions dismissed

ORDER

' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This order shall dispose of two petitions namely C. P. S. L. A. No, 577/78 and C. P. S. L. A. No, 578/78 as both of them are based on the same facts and were disposed of by the same judgment of the High Court.

2. The facts, briefly are that the petitioners were in possession of one house each in Noorpur T hal, District Sargodha and filed their N. C. H. Forms for their transfer on 13-5.1960. The houses in question were, however, auctioned away on 13-3-1961 in favour of one Nazar Muhammad predecessorin- interest of respondents (3 to 8). The auction-purchaser paid the price in 1968 and was issued the P.

T. D. On 22-8-1978. Sixteen years after the aforementioned auction the petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner saying that they had filed their N. C. H. Forms but the transfer price had not been demanded from them, nor bad any transfer order been issued in their favour.

They urged this point before the various Settlement officials had failed. They finally challenged the auction in question through Writ Petitions Nos. 67-R-78 and 68-R-78, respectively. The High Court, however dismissed the same on the grounds firstly, that when asked to produce the receipts showing that they had filed the N. C. H. Forms, produced some documents which bore no dates and had not been signed by any officer of the Settlement Department secondly that the petitioners had failed to agitate the matter for 16 long years and were as such, guilty of gross negligence and indolence and, thirdly that after issuance of the P. T. D. The Settlement Department had become functus officio.

3. After having heard the petitioner's counsel at length and considered the matter we find no defect in the impugned judgment. The petitioner are, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch