Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLD 776 = 1993 CLC 678
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 477-R and 478-R of 1982, heard on 13th October, 1992.
Presented By: Before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, J
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. Sh. Maqbool Hussain for
Respondent No.2. Sh. Muhammad Hanif for the Settlement Department.

ABDUL KARIM ---Petitioner

VERSUS

DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another---Respondents

Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 20

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--- ---S. 20---Question of divisibility/indivisibility of premises in question-- Decisions of forums below that such premises were divisible was set aside by Settlement Commissioner in revision---Validity---Documents on record, indicated that such premises had separate access as they abutted on the roadside and were being used independently since long and were in occupation of petitioners---Order passed by Settlement Commissioner was based upon the same reasoning whereupon earlier order passed by him had been set aside by the High Court in earlier round of litigation---No fresh material had either been placed .on record or taken into consideration by the Settlement Commissioner for coming to the conclusion that premises in question, were not divisible---Such premises were although part of the main house which had been allotted to respondent, yet divisibility or otherwise of a composite building had to be adjudged from attending circumstances which did exist and prove that premises in question, were divisible portion of the main house. Mangat Ali v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan and another PLD 1969 Lah. 204 and Muhammad Yusuf v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD 1968 SC 101 ref. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--- ----S. 20---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Arbitrary and capricious order---Challenge to---Petitioners displaced persons one of whom was non-claimant while the other was a claimant had been accommodated by lower forums---Said orders advanced purpose of legislation regarding rehabilitation of refugees and thus, statutory and primary beneficiaries could not have been deprived of property in question, which was in their possession, by Settlement Commissioner in revision, merely on basis of conjectures and surmises---Such order being arbitrary and capricious was liable to be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction.   Mangat Ali v. Chief Settlement an rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan and another…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register