Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4787 = 1965 SLD 4787 = 1965 PLD 507
West Pakistan Lahore
Second Appeal from Order No. 233 of 1963, decided on 31st March 1965.
Presented By: Anwarul Haq and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ
Syed Ali Moazzam v. M. A. Effandi R. S, A. No. 374 of 1963 distinguished.   Aziz Ahmad Bajwa for Appellant. M. B. Husain for
Respondent.

Mian MUHAMMAD DIN-Appellant  

VERSUS

  Sh. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE GABA-Respondent

Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

Section: 22,25,2(4)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)----   ----Ss. 22, 25 read with S. 2 (4), proviso-Building held by Settlement Authorities to constitute two houses-Determi nation and demarcation of "exact portion of building which would constitute one house" function of such authorities-Jurisdiction of civil Courts to determine and demarcate such portion barred-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9.   While dealing with the question of transfer of a building under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the Settlement Authorities held that the building constituted two houses. House A was transferred to one applicant and house B to the other applicant. A dispute arose between the two transferees about the ownership of a certain portion of the building, and the Settlement Authorities gave a finding that such portion formed part of house A. Transferee of house B thereupon instituted a civil suit praying for a declaration that the disputed portion was a part of house B. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the same ground. On a second. appeal filed before the High Court:   Held, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the building constituted two houses it was essential for the persons exercising the delegated authority to determine and demarcate the exact portion of the building which would constitute one house and other would then automatically constitute the other house. It was, therefore, not correct to contend that the demar cation of the two houses was a duty not cast upon an officer of the Settlement Department under the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is not an ethereal object which is transferred by the Settlement Department by virtue of the Provisional Transfer Order but a tangible thing in the shape of a house and unless the transferee knows what is actually being transferred to him the Settlement Authority would not be deemed to have performed its function in accordance with the Act. For…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register