| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5196 = 1966 SLD 5196 = 1966 PLD 326 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Letters Patent Appeal No. 226 of 1961, decided on 12th January 1966.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, C. J. and Karam Elahi Chauhan, J
Muhammad 1qbal Khan v. Chief Settlement Commissioner etc. P L D 1965 S C 404 ref. S. M. Zubair for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondent.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 226 of 1961, decided on 12th January 1966.
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, C. J. and Karam Elahi Chauhan, J
Muhammad 1qbal Khan v. Chief Settlement Commissioner etc. P L D 1965 S C 404 ref. S. M. Zubair for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER---Appellant
VERSUS
CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER---Respondent
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
Section: 2(4),19,20
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 2(4), first proviso, 19 & 20 read with Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XVIII of 1965), S. 2-House-Divisibility-Order passed by delegatee of Chief Settlement Commissioner on point of divisibility-Open to appeal and revision. Jalal Din and others v. Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner etc. P L D 1965 S C 261 held not applicable. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 2(4), first proviso, 2 (12) & 25 and Con stitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-House-Divisibility-Whether building or premises consists of more than one residential unit Quasi-judicial function of Settlement Authority-Order pronounced in arbitrary manner-Open to scrutiny by High Court in writ jurisdiction-Order not arbitrary or in excess of jurisdiction Cannot be interfered with. Date of hearing: 7th December 1965. JUDGMENT K. E. CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to residential portion of Property No. S. III-21-S-5, situated at Jan Muhammad Road, New Anarkali Lahore. In this property, there are four shops and a residential portion. In the present case, we are not concerned with the shops. The residential portion was in possession of the appellantsand some other persons. The case of the appellants is that the said other persons surrendered their rights in favour of the appellants, as is evident from Annexure "A" attached with the writ petition, and, consequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order, dated the 22nd of March 1960, transferred the entire residential portion to the appellants. Against the order of the D. S. C., two appeals were referred one by one Saeed-ul-Islam and the other by the appellants who claimed another shop in addition to the one which had already been transferred to them by the D. S. C. The Additional Settlement…