MUHAMMAD DIN vs The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER First Sched — 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD DIN VS The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER First Sched., arts. 14 & 120---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) act (XIV of 1975), S. 3---Evacuee property---Suit for declaration---Limitation period, commencement of---Main challenge of the appellant/plaintiff, in the suit, was with regard to the validity of the Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) dated 15-1-1962, for which purpose the Deputy Settlement Officer had referred him to have recourse to Civil Court for the redress of his grievance---Order of the Deputy Settlement Officer referring the appellant to Civil Court could not, give him a fresh period of limitation to institute the suit to challenge the validity of the PTD dated 15.1.1962---as far as the appellant's knowledge of the PTD dated 15.1.1962 was concerned, he had knowledge from 17-03-1973 when he vide the deed of General Power of attorney accepted to represent his mother, as her attorney, in litigation concerning the suit property and thereafter did represent her before all courts and authorities, including the High Court---as per article 14 of the First Schedule to the Limitation act, 1908, the period of limitation for instituting a suit to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government made by him in his official capacity, not otherwise expressly provided for in the said act, was one year from the date of the act or order; while under the residuary article 120, the period of limitation was six years---Whichever of these two periods was applied, the suit of the appellant having been instituted on 31-01-1987 to challenge the PTD dated 15.1.1962 was clearly barred by the law of limitation---appeal was dismissed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD DIN VS The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER S. 3 & First Sched.---Multiple reliefs sought in a suit---Main relief barred by limitation---Effect---When the main relief sought in a suit is barred by time, the consequential relief, even if be within time, is of no legal avail. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD DIN VS The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Ss. 2(2) & 3---Evacuee property---Proceedings pending after the cutoff date specified under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975---After the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 ('the Act'), the officers notified under the Act, do not possess the jurisdiction to declare any Provisional Transfer Order ("PTO") or Permanent Transfer Deed ("PTD") regarding which no proceedings were pending on the cutoff date (specified under the Act), as null and void on the grounds of alleged fraud or forgery; they can only deal with and decide the pending proceedings and cannot initiate any new proceeding---Anyone who wants to challenge any PTO or PTD issued under the repealed laws, and has locus standi to do so, is to knock at the doors of Civil Court, a court of plenary jurisdiction, for the redress of his grievance. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD DIN VS The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER art. 129(e)---Official acts---Presumption of regularity---Presumption of regularity attached to official acts cannot be rebutted only by making vague allegations. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD DIN VS The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER S. 42---Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3---Suit for declaration---Evacuee property---Unconscionable conduct of the plaintiff---Conduct of the appellant/plaintiff, throughout the entire proceedings culminating in the institution of the suit, was not above board---Firstly, the appellant, while representing his mother as her attorney, stated himself to be a resident of the house bearing property No. 65/1-C, not No.65-ABC---As per his own statement made in the deed of General Power of Attorney, he stated to have been residing with his mother in the house bearing property No. 65/1-C, thus, leaving doubt as to how he could simultaneously be in possession of another house bearing property No.65-ABC as claimed by him in his application made to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, seeking transfer of that house in his favour---Secondly, the appellant was unable to clearly and specifically state the period of his alleged possession, in his application of the house bearing property No.65-ABC he was claiming transfer in his favour, within the contemplation of the Scheme in question---Finally, the silence and inaction on the part of the appellant in agitating his own alleged grievance, when he was pursuing the identical cause of his mother on her behalf as her attorney, before different forums portrayed a very negative impression which was very hard to ignore---Such conduct of the appellant disentitled him to the discretionary relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Appeal was dismissed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD DIN VS The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER S. 42---Suit for declaration---Relief---Unconscionable or inequitable conduct of plaintiff---Where the conduct of the person claiming declaratory relief is unconscionable or inequitable, the court may decline to grant him the relief on this sole ground. Head NotesCase Description

MUHAMMAD DIN vs The DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER First Sched — 2022 SCMR 1481 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR