The petitioner Mst. Sughran Bibi widow of Wazir Ali was a claimant displaced person and was transferred Shop No.8/725, Sialkot and a P.T.O. Was accordingly issued in her favour on 28th November, 1959. From the contents of the order, dated 3rd December, 1978 (Annexure C) it appears that the evaluation of the property was Rs.6,067.50. Rs.3,668 were paid by the petitioner from her own Compensation Book. Under an agreement of association, dated 14th October, 1960 which was approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2nd March, 1961. Rs.1,834 were, paid from the Compensation Book of Mst. Maryam Bibi the associate. The balance of Rs:565.50 was paid in cash through Treasury challan, dated 23rd February, 1965. The entire dues thus would appear to have been cleared by early 1965. However, the transfer was cancelled and the shop was resumed under Settlement Scheme NO:VIII allegedly on the ground of non-payment of balance of Rs.2,153 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (RP) Sialkot vide order dated 28th May, 1977. The shop thus becoming available it was transferred under Residual Property Scheme in favour of respondent No.l vide order dated 24th May, 1978 and after completion of other formalities Transfer Deed was issued in his favour on 28th May, 1978. It appears that thereafter the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (RP) while looking at the facts on the file found that the petitioner-transferee had paid the entire dues, there was no question of any non-payment and for that reason, there was no justification for the order of resumption of the property from her; nor its transfer in favour of the respondent. After referring to the record he observed that "in view of these facts, no amount on account of price was due from her and thus she was not defaulter of any amount. These facts have been discovered subsequently. Therefore, the resumption order, dated 28th May, 1977, being passed beyond jurisdiction was void and the same has been withdrawn by me today, the 3rd December, 1978." Since Transfer Decd had been issued in favour of the respondent, he submitted the case for cancellation of the Deed in suo motu revisional jurisdiction, to the Administrator (RP), Lahore. The order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (RP), Sialkot, dated 3rd December, 1978 was challenged by the respondent through a civil suit without impleading the petitioner which was decreed on 31st July, 1983. On her appeal, the judgment and decree were set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree, dated 13th March, 1985. The respondent filed a revision petition bearing C.R.No.1014-D of 1985 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 12th January, 1986. When the reference by the Deputy Administrator (RP) dated 3rd December, 1978 for cancellation under suo Motu revisional power the Permanent Deed issued in favour of the respondent came up before the Administrator, the latter held that in view of the P.T.D.
Having been issued in favour of the respondent no interference was possible and that the petitioner may go to the Civil Court for remedy, if she so desired. This is vide order, dated 22nd March, 1986. The petitioner has filed the afore titled Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner being a claimant displaced person in possession was transferred the property. She paid its price. It is admitted fact that the entire dues have been paid. On the assumption that the payment had not been made of some sum the property was resumed and transferred to the respondent No.l illegally. When the mistake was realised by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (RP), he corrected the error, withdrew his order of resumption and sent the case to the Administrator (RP) for cancellation of the Transfer Deed issued in favour of the respondent. The latter fell in error in not granting relief to the petitioner in view of the issuance of P.T.D. In favour of the respondent. That did not involve that the facts established on record be ignored and building erected on false foundation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has vehemently contended that the petitioner was issued a notice for the payment of the balance amount and for non .Payment the property was resumed vide order, dated 28th May, 1977. She was issued a notice to that effect on 30th May, 1977.
She received the same vide acknowledgement due, dated 18th June, 1977. No appeal or revision having been filed against the order of resumption the same could not have been withdrawn by the Deputy Administrator (RP) and certainly not without hearing the answering respondent which was never done. It was further added that the answering respondent having been transferred the shop and having paid the price and issued the Transfer Deed, need not be interfered with his right.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
There is no denying the fact that the petitioner was transferred the shop in question in the first instance. She is a claimant displaced person. The price was paid and adjusted and finally cash amount of Rs.565.50 was deposited vide Treasury Challan, dated 23rd February, 1965. This payment in the Treasury is made at the end when all dues had already been paid or adjusted. The cash payment in the Treasury is a final signal or proof that everything has been paid and nothing is due.
Notwithstanding that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (RP) proceeded on the basis that there was some balance and ordered resumption of the property from the petitioner, but when he realised that he had made a mistake, examined the record and came to the conclusion that the payment had already been made, there was no question of balance amount to be paid and, therefore, the order of resumption was without jurisdiction. Consequently he withdrew it. It was perfectly right and just. When the matter for cancellation of Transfer Deed issued to the respondent was referred to the Administrator, the latter fell in error that in view of Transfer Deed he had no jurisdiction in the matter. Also that the order of recall of the resumption order was bad too. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the latter was not heard when the resumption order against the petitioner was withdrawn by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (RP), is quite correct as far as it goes but I have heard him through and through and perused all the documents; whether on the record or otherwise in his brief. In the circumstances of the case when the petitioner a displaced person, has been transferred a shop of which the respondent appears to be an occupant/tenant (Annexure B) and she had paid the entire dues, there was no question of resumption of the property from her nor its transfer to her tenant the respondent. The widow lady has suffered the agony of litigation long enough as would appear from the narration of facts and it is no use remanding the case for rehearing so as to afford an opportunity to the respondent to have his say when in no circumstances the petitioner can be deprived of the property in her possession which was transferred to her. She paid the transfer price thereof and when an error was made it was corrected by the Officer himself and withdrew the order. In these circumstances, it would be sheer waste of public time to remand the case. The order of the Administrator (RP) challenged in this petition is dearly without lawful authority and of no legal effect for the simple reason that it is not only hypertechnical but ignores the reality and the justice of the case. The petitioner was entitled to be affirmed in her rights and the Transfer Deed issued in favour of the respondent deserved to be recalled. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to remain in peace of the property transferred to her years ago. Necessary action shall be taken. Since the respondent was not in default the parties shall bear their own costs.