Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3226 = 1975 SLD 3226 = 1975 PLD 580
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 131 of 1972, decided on 12th March 1975.
Presented By: Abdul Hafeez Memon, J
Maroof Ali Khan for Petitioner. Ikram Ahmed Ansari for
Respondent No. 6.

FATEH MUHAMMAD JATOI-Petitioner

VERSUS

SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS- Respondents

Law:

Section:

  Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)  Sched.-Transfer of house-Natural justice, principles of-Oppor tunity of hearing-Revision by F that house in his occupation could not be transferred by auction to M-Settlement Commissioner without affording opportunity of hearing to F peremptorily dismissing revi sion on short ground that since P. T. D. had been issued to M no further action was possible-Held : Action of Settlement Commis sioner passing order in absentia of F was in contravention of natural justice-Order set aside and case remanded. Date of hearing : 12th March 1975.                                                                                                                                  JUDGMENT The dispute in this petition relates to an evacuee property bearing Custodian No. P-III/28/G-1, in the village of Pir-Jo-Goth District Khairpur. These premises were originally leased to the occupant Fateh Mohammad by the Mukhtiarkar and A. R. O., Rohri by his order dated 6-5-1951 on payment of rent to be fixed by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Properties, Sukkur. The petitioner thereafter paid rent of Rs. 147-4 annas at the rate of Rs. 3 per month for which receipt dated 31-3-1955 was passed to him by the Custodian Department. Subsequently, these premises were sold in auction held on 11-5-1960 and were purchased by respondent No. 4 Muhammad Ayub through his attorney respondent No. 5 Muhammad Arab and the latter surrendered to respondent Allahdino under a surrender deed dated 23-6-1966. Thereafter, respondent No. 6 served a notice on the petitioner demanding rent as a result whereof petitioner challenged the transfer of the property before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the grounds that under the provisions of the Settlement Scheme No. 7 the premises in question being situated in rural…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register