Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3219 = 1981 SLD 3219 = 1981 SCMR 728
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 83 of 1975, decided on 29th March, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 12th November, 1974 in W. P. No. 1110/R of 1973).
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
Syed Ali Raza, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advo cate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL-Petitioner

VERSUS

MEHRAJ DIN, ETC.-Respondents

Law:

Section:

  Settlement Scheme No. VI Para. 6-Plot subject-matter of petition auctioned in favour of respondents and P. T. D. also issued-Petitioner not disputing auction of property in respondent's favour but alleging such auction having covered only a part of property and remaining part being open for transfer to petitioner-Point having not been taken in any of Courts below nor finding mention anywhere in writ petition Rejected-Reliance of petitioner upon some earlier form-Not possible due to finding of fact having been recorded by Department that no such form was ever filed-Form LH filed by petitioner when property already stood disposed of, writ petition, held, with out merit and dismissed. Date of hearing : 29th March, 1980.                                                                                                                                                                ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-A plot which is the subject-matter of this petition was auctioned in favour of the respondents on 16th April 1960 who obtained its P. T. O. on 2nd August, 1960 and P. T. D. L on 24th November, 1960. 2. After the finalization of transfer in favour of the respondents, the present petitioner somewhere on 27th November, 1971 filed an appli cation for claiming the plot. It was rejected by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner--(as stated in para 16 of the present petition) on the same day namely 27th November, 1971 on the ground that the plot having already been disposed of it was no longer available for trans fer. An appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order also met the same fate and was rejected by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 13th November. 1973. However, in his order aforesaid be said that it was an appeal against an order…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register