Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 152 1976 SLD 152 1976 SCMR 71
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 685 of 1974, decision dated: 3tst July 1975
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., AND MUHAMMAD GUL, J
Sh. Abdul Hague, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent taro. Nemo for
Respondent

KH. FATEH MOHAMMAD ANWARI

VS

KH. MUMTAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)- ----S. 2 (4) & Sched.-House whether divisible or not-Exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities to decide-High Court would not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Abdul Mujid Khan v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1968 S C 124 and Shaukat Ali v. Settlement Commissioner P L D 1973 S C 124 distinguished. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The dispute, in this petition from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 21-6-1974, arises out of the transfer of a three storied residential Bungalow No. 5, Temple Road, Lahore, and is confined to its divisibility between the petitioner and respondent 1 herein both of whom are claimants in possession as allottees of different portions of the same. The facts briefly are, that the house was initially held up to the level of the Settlement Commissioner to be indivisible and the whole of it was transferred to the petitioner who was in possession of the two upper stories and the respondent who was in occupation of the ground portion was entirely eliminated. The order is dated 29-11-1960. However, a revision by the respondent was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who held, inter alia, that the bungalow consisted of two independent residential units and constituted two houses within the meaning of section 2(4) of Act 28 of 1958, and that it is not possible to hold that the property in dispute constituted a single indivisible unit. Writ Petition No. 88-R of 1966 taken by the petitioner against the above order of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, however, was accepted by the High Court on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity within the meaning of section 20(5) of Act 28 of 1958 to defend the order of the Settlement Commissioner in his favour. After remand of the case by the High Court, the successor Chief Settlement Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, ride order dated 31-5-1966 again thx Settlement Commission and ordered the transfer bungalow to both the contestants in accordance with their respective possessions. He also issued certain directions about division of the compound, between…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492