| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3038 = 1981 SLD 3038 = 1981 SCMR 71 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1977, decided on 8th October, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-11-1974 to L. P. A. No. 755 of 1966).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Respondent No. 3: Ex parse. Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) for
Respondent No. 4.
Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1977, decided on 8th October, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-11-1974 to L. P. A. No. 755 of 1966).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Respondent No. 3: Ex parse. Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) for
Respondent No. 4.
AHMAD HASSAN-Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: 8, 5(d)
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 115
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) Sched., para. 8 read with Settlement Scheme No. I, paras. 5(d) & 8, second proviso-Transfer of evacuee property-Eacb one of claimants applying separately for transfer of shops and such shops not treated as one unit by any Settlement authority-Deputy Settlement Commissioner also not appearing to have applied his mind to second proviso of para. 8 of scheme-Deputy Settlement Commissioner in jointly transferring two shops to appellant and respondents, in circumstances, held, acted beyond letter of law, his order could not be regarded as final in absence of being appealed against and consequently Settlement Commissioner entitled to re-open question of transfer afresh. (b) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 115 - Estoppel - Parties agreeing to their entitlement being decided by lots-No exception, held, could be taken to such agreement and parties bound on principle of estoppel inter partes.--[Estoppel]. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1964 S C 829 and South American & Mexican Company Ex parte Bank of England (1895)1 Ch. D 37 ref. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1980. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24th of Novem ber, 1974, by which L. P. A. No. 755 of 1966, was allowed and the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi, upheld. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that the appellant and his deceased brother, Wali Muhammad, who is now represented by his legal representatives, respondents 1 to 3 herein were claimant displaced persons and they were jointly transferred two shops…