| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2763 = 1962 SLD 2763 = 1962 PLD 189 |
Lahore High Court
Letters Patent Appeal No. 73 of 1961, decided on 16th January 1962.
Presented By:Shabir Ahmad and Abdur Rahim Kharal, JJ
Major Ishaq Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commissioner, (Legal) for Appellant. A, R. Sheikh for
Respondents 1 to 3.
Respondent No. 4 in person. Syed Nasim Hassan for
Respondent 5. Date of hearing: 3rd January 1962
Letters Patent Appeal No. 73 of 1961, decided on 16th January 1962.
Presented By:Shabir Ahmad and Abdur Rahim Kharal, JJ
Major Ishaq Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commissioner, (Legal) for Appellant. A, R. Sheikh for
Respondents 1 to 3.
Respondent No. 4 in person. Syed Nasim Hassan for
Respondent 5. Date of hearing: 3rd January 1962
THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE-Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN, (2) JAVED IQBAL ALTAF, (3) BEGUM FATIMA ALTAF HUSSAIN, (4) S. SHABIR HUSSAIN AND (5) S. MUNIR HUSSAIN----Respondents
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: S. 20 (2)
Appeal-Signature on Memorandum of appeal-Letters Patent Appeal by Chief Settlement Commissioner - Whether Memorandum of appeal must be signed by Chief Settlement Commis sioner or someone authorised by Chief Settlement Commissioner in writing on his behalf : (Quaere). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),S. 20 (2)-Revision-Powers-."Entirely within discretion" of Chief Settlement Commissioner "to interfere or not to interfere"-"Refusal to interfere" does not mean, for purpose of writ petition, that such officer had "refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him"-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. Writ-Relief-Asked for, "by and large" but "not clearly"-- Granted by writ of certiorari-Not sufficient ground for interfering with order granting writ, in Letters Patent Appeal (in circumstances of case)-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),S: 2 (4), proviso I-"House"-Parts of "house" in possession of different persons -"House" indivisible unless Chief Settlement Commissioner orders otherwise-Reasonableness not open to scrutiny by High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction-Order cannot be questioned by petition for writ. The first proviso to subsection (4) of section 2, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 makes It clear that though a building may consist of innumerable units, each of which units has been in the occupation of a different person, the building will remain one house for the purposes of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, unless the Settlement Authority competent to do so declare that it is more than one house. If a building which is a residential premises is in possession of one person only the building is one house however big it may be, and it will remain one house even if It is occupied by more than one person unless the Chief Settlement Commissioner say that it shall be treated as more than one house. For the purposes of Courts…