| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3249 1970 SLD 3249 = 1970 PLD 766 |
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 274 of 1966, decided on 22nd October 1969.
Presented By: Muhammad Akram and Shafi-ur-Rahman, JJ
Kh. Abdur Rahim, G. M. Mirza and Tariq Rahim for Appel lant. Zaki-ud-Din Pal for
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Major Ishaque Muhammad Khan for the S. A., etc. (on 25-6-1969).
Letters Patent Appeal No. 274 of 1966, decided on 22nd October 1969.
Presented By: Muhammad Akram and Shafi-ur-Rahman, JJ
Kh. Abdur Rahim, G. M. Mirza and Tariq Rahim for Appel lant. Zaki-ud-Din Pal for
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Major Ishaque Muhammad Khan for the S. A., etc. (on 25-6-1969).
KARAM DIN----Appellant
VERSUS
THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS----Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 98
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: 2
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2(4), First Proviso and (12) & Sch.. Part I ---Division of house---Decision of Settlement Authorities as to divisibility of house-Cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 98---[Jalil Ahmad v. Settlement Commis sioner P L D 1962 Kar. 197 dissented from]. Muhammad Yusuf v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and others, P L D 1968 S C 101 fol. Jalil Ahmad v. Settlement Commissioner P L D 1962 Kar. 197 dissented from. Haji Muhammad Hanif v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others P L D 1964 Lah. 261; Abdul Majid Khan v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore P L D 1968 S C 154; Master Nikka and another v. Ghulam Nabi and others Law Notes 1969 S C 35 and L. P. A. No. 68 of 1961 ref. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sch., Part I read with Ss. 2(4) & 31(2) and Settlement Scheme No. 1, para. 42'---Division of house---Deputy Settlement Commissioner invested with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner in terms of S. 31(2)---Not competent to sub -delegate such delegated powers of division of properties under Act in terms of para. 42, Settlement Scheme No. 1---Assistant Settlement Commissioner exercising delegated powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner under para. 42, Settlement Scheme No. 1, held, not competent to order division, of property. An Assistant Settlement Commissioner passed an order dividing a house in pursuance of the powers delegated to him, in this behalf, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner under paragraph 42 of the Settlement Scheme No. I. It was contended that under paragraph 42 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, at best, could have delegated any of his powers "under this scheme" to any Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Held: in none of the paragraphs under the whole of the Settlement Scheme No. 1 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was invested with any power to divide the property. As such he…