| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1671 = 1991 CLC 1319 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.1725-R of 1976, decided on 25th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J
S. Abid Nawaz for Petitioner. Syed Zamir Zaidi for
Respondent No.3.
Writ Petition No.1725-R of 1976, decided on 25th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J
S. Abid Nawaz for Petitioner. Syed Zamir Zaidi for
Respondent No.3.
AKHTAR-UN-NISA BEGUM --- Petitioner
VERSUS
WAIATAT ALI BALLOURY and others --- Respondents
Law: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975
Section: 2
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)--- -----------S. 2 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of --- High Court in earlier proceedings having upheld order of Additional Settlement Commissioner in which he had held that petitioner had in fact filed the relevant form for allotment of property in question, remanded the case for reconsideration of parties' entitlement --- Such question could not, therefore, be re-opened in remand proceedings which were restricted to the question of prior possession --- Deputy Settlement Commissioner in remand proceedings observed that in the survey list names of husbands of both the ladies i.e. petitioner and respondent did appear with date of possession on 24-12-1947 --- Such factors would thus, at best make out a case of remand but question was whether in the facts and circumstances of case interest of justice would be served to intervene in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction --- Portion in dispute being a small flat and being indivisible, only one of the two parties could be transferred the same --- Both parties even if in possession in their own rights since specified date, petitioner being in possession of a lessor portion had to give way to respondent who was in possession of major portion and at present in possession of the entire unit--Respondent had maintained the unit by effecting repeated repairs as otherwise portion that once had been in possession of petitioner would have fallen down leaving nothing to be transferred to any one of them --- Plea that petitioner had got her claim satisfied elsewhere was also not controverted-- Parties being close relatives, relations between them were strained because of litigation and thus portion' in question could not be even jointly transferred to them --- Interference in impugned orders was refused in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. S. Abid Nawaz for Petitioner. Syed Zamir Zaidi for Respondent No.3. Dates of hearing: 16th, 18th and 19th March, 1991. JUDGMENT The dispute in this petition pertains to a residential portion of property…