| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 552 = 1990 MLD 977 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. S-61 of 1984, heard on 21st November, 1989.
Presented By: Before Wajihuddin Ahmed, J
Farkhand Ali for Petitioners. A.M. Mobin Khan for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. S-61 of 1984, heard on 21st November, 1989.
Presented By: Before Wajihuddin Ahmed, J
Farkhand Ali for Petitioners. A.M. Mobin Khan for
Respondents.
Mst. BISMILLAH BANG and 9 others--Petitioners.
VERSUS
THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (RELIFF, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION), HYDERABAD and 7 others---Respondents
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: 10
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)-- ---S.10---Transfer of property under evacuee laws---Entitlement---Applicant seeking transfer under the Displaced Persons Laws, can only get what he had applied for and to which he was found to be lawfully entitled---Person applying on C.H. or C.S. form, showing himself to be in possession, can only get one house or one shop. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---O.I, R.3---Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2---P.T.D. issued in favour of petitioners' predecessor restricted to specified number by excluding therefrom a specific area---Petitioners' plea was that notice having not been issued to all the successors-in-interest of the deceased allottee, order of Authority restricting the P.T.D. was negation of the principles of natural justice and thus could not he maintained---No objection was raised before the Notified officer and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to anybody---All the petitioners were inter-connected being successors of deceased allottee and were in touch with one another, as reflected in the present Constitutional petition and they claimed on the basis of same title---Petitioners were also fully represented by a counsel---Interest of all the petitioners was thus fully accounted for and if there was anything amiss, they had in addition been fully heard in, Constitutional petition filed on their behalf---Order restricting the P.T.D. thus, suffered from no illegality on that score. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---OXXXIX, Rr. I & 2 & O.1, R.3--Non-joinder of party at an interlocutory stage--Effect--Where at an interlocutory stage, joinder of a party was not ordered in the proceedings, but its counsel was heard, interest of party stood fully safeguarded. Tradax Ocean Transportation SA. v. The Muslim Commercial Bank 1984SCMR360re1. Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- ---S.2(2)--Question of fraud--Competency of Settlement Authorities to determine--Settlement Authorities, in respect of pending proceedings were…