The petitioner is a non-claimant displaced person in posses--sion of House No. A/622 situated in Mohalla Tando Wali Muhammad, Hyderabad. Being in possession of the said house since the year 1948, the petitioner applied for its transfer to himself on the NCH Form. On the 2nd of November 1959, the petitioner was issued Appendix IX by which the house in dispute was transferred to him for a price of Rs. 4,140. The appendix did not set out any scheme of installments. The petitioner after receipt of the above appendix did not feel compelled to make any payment on account of the transfer price until on the 12 of January 1963, when he received a notice from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad that unless the price was paid or got adjusted within a week the case would be consigned to the record, and the property in question will be disposed of by auction. On the 1st of February 1963. The petitioner applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for two months' extension of time for payment of the price. A copy of this letter has been placed on record by the petitioner himself and it was explained in the letter that the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner had turned down the petitioner's request for extension of time. No order appears to have been passed on the afore-- said letters; but the petitioner on the 27th of February 1963, got a sum of Rs. 2,623 adjusted against the purchase price from the compensation book of one Mst. Mannu thus, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,570 still payable. Once again the petitioner went into a slumber with regard to the payment of the balance amount and on the 15th of January 1965, he received a notice from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that upon the peti--tioner's failure to pay the balance consideration the transfer in his favour had been cancelled on the 7th of February 1963, and the property in dispute transferred to respondent No. 4 on the 18th of February 1963. Copy of this letter has not been placed on record. Petitioner's contention 9s than the order ofth cancellation dated 7-2-1963 was passed without issuing to him a notice to show cause and was, therefore, void ab initio. How--ever, being aggrieved by the above order of the learned Deputy settlement Commissioner cancelling his transfer the petitioner appealed to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 9th of March 1965, observed that the petitioner's appeal was barred by time. But taking a compassionate view of the petitioner's case the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner restored the transfer in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that he would pay the balance of the transfer price within a week failing which the transfer in his favour was to be treated as cancelled and the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 4 restored.
2. The prime contention of the petitioner is that he came to know of the aforesaid order only on the 20th of March 1965. It shall presently be seen that this contention is blatantly false. However, on the plea that he came to know of the said order on the 20th of March 1965, when he applied for a certified copy of it the petitioner paid the balance of Rs. 1,517 by adjust--ment in a compensation b)ok on the 26th of March 1965. This adjustment was accepted by the Settlement Department on the 14th of May 1965. The trouble, however, arose when on the 17th of May 1965, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can--celled the transfer in favour of the petitioner for non-payment of the balance of purchase price although on the date when the order in question was passed the price of the disputed house stood fully adjusted.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17-5-1965 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. In this appeal once again the plea taken was that the petitioner bad come to know of the order dated 9th of March 1965, only on the 20th of March 1965.
The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by observing that the order of 9th of March 1965, had been passed in the presence of the petitioner's counsel and that being so the payment of the balance price should have been made before the 17th of March 1965. Since the payment was not made within time the transfer in favour of the petitioner stood automatically cancelled In terms of the additional Settle--ment Commissioner's order dated 9-3- 1965. The appeal was thus rejected. The petitioner filed a revision application against the last mentioned order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 10-12-1965. This revision application was also dismissed by the learned District Judge-cum-Settlement Commissioner at Hyderabad on the 23rd of February 1966. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, moved the dispute to this Court in proceedings under Article 98 of the Constitution, of Pakistan, 1962.
4. Once again before me the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had gained knowledge of the order dated 9th of March 1965 only on the 20th of March 1965. This contention, as observed by me earlier, is far from being correct. The learned Addi--tional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 10-12-1965 himself observed that the order dated 9th of March 1965, was passed in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, the learned counsel for the Settlement Depart--ment, who appeared for respondents 1 to 3 in this case, placed before me the settlement record. The order sheet of the said record contains a separate order dated 9-3-1965 which recites that the appeal had been disposed of on the said date by a sepa--rate order which was announced in Court. This order-sheet has also been signed by the counsel for both the parties. Further--more there is an affidavit on the original record sworn by the petitioner himself and filed before the Additional Settlement Commissioner suggesting that the payment could not be made since the order had not been typed out till the 19th of March 1965, and a copy could be obtained only on the 20th of March 1965. In other words the ground taken by the petitioner was totally different before department. I have, therefore no hesitation in concluding that the petitioner had full knowledge of the order passed on the 9th of March 1965, and that be had gained this knowledge on the very day the order was passed.
5. On the above conclusion reached by me this petition should have been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the manner in which the transfer of the property to favour of the petitioner had been cancelled was in complete violation of the provisions of law. This argument was elaborated by reference to Chapter VI of Scheme No. 1, framed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in relation to transfer of houses and shops to persons in possession. It was firstly argued that the appendix issued to the petitioner should have set out a scheme of installments visualised by para 29(4) of the Settlement Scheme No. 1. My attention was drawn to the appendix issued to the petitioner which did not set out the scheme for installments. I am afraid this argument does not have substance. Para. 22 of the schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 provides that any amount payable by a non- claimant dis--placed person or a local in respect of any property transferred to him shall be paid by him within one year in 12 equal monthly installments. This is a statutory provision and has effect not--withstanding any stipulation in the appendix issued to a trans--feree. As has been noticed earlier, the appendix in question was issued to the petitioner as early back as 2nd of November 1959. If indeed it did not carry any scheme of payment by installments the petitioner should have concluded that he was required to pay the sum immediately; yet the petitioner did not feel the slightest necessity of making any payment until on the 12th of January 1963, when he was warned that he would forfeit the property if he fails to make the payment within a week. The maximum period within which the petitioner was to have made the full payment of the purchase price was one year from the date of issue of the appendix. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any force.
It was then contended that the cancellation of the transfer in favour of the petitioner could not have been effected except in accordance with para. 35 of Settlement Scheme No. 1. Under the aforesaid paragraph the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is to submit a proposal to the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner for the ejectment of a transferee who has defaulted in payment of the purchase price. This proposal is to be approved and thereafter the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is to issue a notice of ejectment to the defaulter directing him to vacate the property, within 21 days of the receipt of the notice. This was to be followed by physical ejectment on the expiry of the period of 21 days. After ejectment the transferee was enabled by paragraph 36 to apply for re-instatement on payment of penal interest. Even this argument, to my mind, is misconceived. Para. 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compen--sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was amended by Ordinance No. XIII of 1964. The amended para. No. 24 is in the follow--ing terms: "(1) If `any' person to whom the benefit of payment by installments has been granted under this schedule fails to pay two consecutive installments or does not pay the amount due from him in accordance with the terms and conditions on which any property has been transferred to him, the Chief Settlement Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf may give such person a notice to pay up the arrearswithin30 days together with such penal interest as may be determined by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or such Officer, failing which the transfer of the property to such person shall be liable to cancellation and he shall be liable to ejectment.
(2) Where the transfer of any property to a person is cancel--led under sub-paragraph (1) the Chief Settlement Commissioner or the officer authorised by him in this behalf may by order restore the property to such person after the amount due from him has been paid with such penal interest as may be specified in the order.
(3) Where transfer of property to a person is cancelled and sub-paragraph (i) the Chief Settlement Commissioner or the officer authorised by him in this behalf may forfeit such part of the amount paid by such person as may be prescribed and transfer the property to some other person."
The above amendment was obviously designed to meet the wholly inappropriate provisions in Chapter VI of Settlement Scheme No. 1. The non-payment of the purchase price under the above para is penalised by a forfeiture of the rights acquired under the transfer documents and the defaulting transferee exposes himself to the liability of the transfer in his favour being cancelled.
Para. 24 of the Schedule as amended supersedes Chapter VI of Settlement Scheme No. I.Have considered the facts of this case very carefully and it is unfortunate that the petitioner has exhibited singular indifferences to his liability to pay the transfer price. It is not a case of an accidental slip or omission or of inability to pay the transfer price owing to unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner has in fact never felt compelled to pay the price for the property he acquired unless he was coerced into doing so--by penal actions. The levity exhibited by the petitioner dis--entitles him to any relief from this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Considering however, the petitioner's plea with regard to his poverty, I do not consider it necessary tomake any orders as to costs.