| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3598 = 1963 SLD 3598 = 1963 PLD 633 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Writ Petition No. 4 of 1960 and Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 92 of 1961, decided on 9th August 1963.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ Writ Petition No. 4 of 1960
Sh. REHMATULLAH-Petitioner Versus HE STATE AND ANOTHER-
Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4 of 1960 and Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 92 of 1961, decided on 9th August 1963.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ Writ Petition No. 4 of 1960
Sh. REHMATULLAH-Petitioner Versus HE STATE AND ANOTHER-
Respondents
Sh. RAHMATULLAH-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTRE `A' KARACHI AND OTHERS-Respondents AND Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 92 of 1961
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, dated the 30th July 1960). (a) Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court----Petition dismissed where petitioner had already preferred writ petition direct to Supreme Court-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Arts. 22 & 160. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Preamble & Ss. 3, 4 & 10 (2) [as added by Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962)], Sched para. 9-Notification under S. 3 acquiring evacuee property to form compensation pool in terms of S. 4 for transfer in accordance with provisions of Schedule-Non -claimants have no "vested" right in property in their possession (Per Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ, Kaikaus, J. contra)-Claimants "vested" beneficiaries qua-compensation pool-Notification issued under S. 3 modified so as to exclude property, approval of sale of which had already been given by Central Government-Modified Notification has only prospective and not retrospective operation even if modification had been specifically declared to be retrospective in effect-Plea of non-claimant based on "vested" right for transfer of property rejected-Property excluded from compensation pool by subsequent Notification again becomes evacuee property (per Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ. ; Kaikaus, J. contra)-Rights of property or as to status cheated by a Notification cannot be cancelled by a mere subsequent Notification (per Kaikaus J.). Per Cornelius, C. J., (S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, Hamoodur Rahman, JJ. agreeing), Kaikaus, J., contra.---A non-claimant displaced person may base his claim for relief upon para graph 9 of the Schedule, in relation to any shop of which he may be possessed, and his claim would be entitled to be examined on that basis, but he could not claim any right in that property by virtue of that property being in the compen sation pool, for the simple reason that he is not included among the specified beneficiaries who are to…