Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3013 1970 SLD 3013 = 1970 SCMR 93
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 50 of 1967, decided on 4th October 1967.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J
Muhammad Anwar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD ISLAMUDDIN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners

VERSUS

S. EJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH, C. S. P., SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 6 OTHERS-Respondents

Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 31st October 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 508 of 1966). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I-Premises consisting of both resi dential and business units-Chief Settlement Commissioner competent to divide property into separate units and transfer units separately. Date of hearing : 4th October 1967. JUDGMENT FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The dispute is with respect to Property No. S-III-10-S-16, Abkari Road, Lahore, which consists of a residential portion and a shop. The residential portion was in occupation of Haji Muhammad Swaleheen and his brothers, Makhdum Hussain (respondent No. 4) and one Imamud din. The shop was in possession of Muhammad Ibrahim. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the residential portion into three separate units and transferred the portions which were in possession of Makhdum Hussain and Swaleheen and his brothers to them, respectively. As Imamuddin had not applied for the transfer of the portion that was in his possession he transferred it to the compensation pool. Similarly, as Muhammad Ibrahim had not applied for transfer of the shop he ordered for its disposal; by auction. On appeal by Swaleheen and his brothers the Additional Settlement Commissioner modified the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by dividing the residential portion into two units and gave one unit to Swaleheen and his brothers and the other to Makhdum Hussain. He, however, maintained the order of auction of the shop. Swaleheen and his brothers then filed a revision petition before a Settlement Commis sioner challenging only that part of the order by which the shop was ordered to be put to auction, but he rejected their claim because they were neither allotted nor in possession of the said shop. They then moved a writ in the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that as the property was situated in a predominantly residential area, the shop should have been transferred as a part of the house to them. The learned Single…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register