Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3302 = 1975 SLD 3302 = 1975 PLD 692
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 49/R of 1975, decided on 28th January 1975.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Syed Farooq Hassan for Petitioner.

FATEH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD ALI AND 9 OTHERS---Respondents

Law: Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961

Section: 6, 7

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) Sched. read with Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961, rr. 6 & 7-Transfer of house and issuance of P. T. D. based on fraud and misrepresentation or order of transfer corum non judice-Settlement Authorities although functus officio end left with no power to correct even clerical mistake yet aggrieved party can seek declaration in civil Courts including High Court in writ jurisdic tion-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199. Syed Murid Hussain Shah v. Mufti Muhammad Yusaf Ali and another 1974 S C M R 8 ; Mo. Hajra Bi and another v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and another 1974 S C M R 235 ; Chottey Khan v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and 2 others P L D 1974 Kar. 226 ; S. Anwar Hussain Sani v. Sarfraz Ahmed and others P L D 1971 S C 669 ; Amlnuddin v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1973 S C M R 624 ; Muhammad Ismail and another v. Settlement Commissioner and another 1973 S C M R 407 and Muhammad Raza Khan and S others v. Ahmad All Khan 1973 S C M R 230 ref.                                                                                                                                      JUDGMENT This Rehabilitation matter has been brought before this Court for the second time in the form of a writ petition. The earlier writ petition No. 584-R/1964 filed from the side of the respondents herein was accepted by me vide judgment dated 12-4-1971 which may be read as part of this order. The transfer through auction of the property in dispute in favour of the present petitioners was set aside and the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision according to law as discussed in the judgment. 2. The Settlement Commissioner has, in a detailed order dated 7-5-1974, held that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register