| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3060 1971 SLD 3060 = 1971 PLD 61 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1968, decided on 28th October 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahma.n, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad .and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
Sh. Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khalilur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Maqbool Rahi Mall'c, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahbo)b Ahmxd, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. , Sh. Aftab Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Mehdi Anwar, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 3.
Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1968, decided on 28th October 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahma.n, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad .and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
Sh. Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khalilur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Maqbool Rahi Mall'c, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahbo)b Ahmxd, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. , Sh. Aftab Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Mehdi Anwar, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 3.
ATTA MUHAMMAD QURESHT--Appellant
VERSUS
THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS -- Respondents
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: 20
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, dated the 5th June 1954, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 1962). (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 20-Special leave to appeal-Granted to consider (i) whether order of Additional Settlement Commissioner passed in revision under S. 20 cancelling transfer of property was contrary to law and (ii) whether High Court misinterpreted para. 3(vi) of Press Note of 3-5-1960. Special leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to con sider (1) whether the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner passed in revision under section (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, cancelling the transfer of the property from the name of the appellant, was contrary to the provisions of the Act, as it was made without giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause against it, and (2) whether the High Court has misinterpreted sub para. (vi) of paragraph 3 of the Press Note of the 3rd of May 1960 (page 140 of the Old Settlement Manual), which did not require any structural alteration to establish a conversion of a shop into a house. (b) Settlement Scheme No. 1, para. 20 read with Press Note dated 3-5-1960, paras. 2 & 3(vi)-Conversion of shop into residen tial house -Current use of premises as on 20-12-1958-Relevant factor to treat a building as a house or a shop-Combined effect of paras. 2 & 3-Property to be disposed of on basis of its converted use. It may not be expedient or it may well nigh be impossible to treat a house as a shop or a shop as a house on its structure or locale but the Press Note issued under para. 20 of Scheme No. 1, which is its controlling provision, does not refer to the locale or a structure of a building for its treatment as a house or a shop. What is relevant for its purpose is the use to which the building was being put on the 20th of December 1958. If the factors of locale and structure were to decide the question, the object of para. 20 of the Scheme and the Press Note would be completely defeated. The word "being" used in the Press Note is important, which merely denotes…