| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3287 = 1981 SLD 3287 = 1981 SCMR 645 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 208 of 1977, heard on 11th February, 1978. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Baluchistan High Court Quetta, in W. P. 118 of 1975).
Presented By: Muhammad Akram, Dorab Patel and Qaisar Khan, JJ
Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. p. 297 and Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works (1943) 2 All E R 560 ref. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 208 of 1977, heard on 11th February, 1978. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Baluchistan High Court Quetta, in W. P. 118 of 1975).
Presented By: Muhammad Akram, Dorab Patel and Qaisar Khan, JJ
Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. p. 297 and Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works (1943) 2 All E R 560 ref. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
SAQLAIN-Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. HAZRA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS--Respondents
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
Section: 2(4),10, 19, 20
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) S. 2(4), Sched. read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Divisibility of house-Question whether property consisted of one house or two houses-A question of fact within exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement authorities-High Court, held, would not have been justified in writ petition to interfere with Settlement authority's finding as to house in question being not a separate house.--[Question of fact-Jurisdiction]. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) S. 2(4), Sched. read with Settlement Scheme No. VII, para. 5 and Constitution of Pakistan -(1973), Art. 199-Jurisdiction-Contention that Assistant Settlement Commissioner's order holding existence of two houses on property in dispute could only have been challenged under para. 5 of Settlement Scheme No. VII in an appeal before Deputy Settlement Commissioner hence revision filed by respondents against impugned order before Settlement Commissioner not competent and his order without jurisdiction-Petitioner not having raised such objection before Settlement Commissioner nor before High Court, such objection even if raised, could not justifiably have been entertained by High Court.-[Jurisdiction]. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1974 S C 829 Muhammad Afzal v. Member, Board of Revenue P L D 1967 S C 314 and Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Hussain P L D 1976 S C 729 ref. (c)Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) S. 20 read with Settlement Scheme No. VII, para. 5-Revisional jurisdiction-Settlement Commissioner, held, not divested of his revisional jurisdiction under S. 20 of Act XXVIII of 1958 by para. 5 of Settlement Scheme No. VII.--[Revision (civil)]. (d) Displaced Persona (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) Ss. 10, 19 & 20 read with Settlement Scheme No. VII (Revised) para. 5(3)-Appeal-Jurisdiction-Para. 5(3) of Revised Settlement Scheme dated 26th March 1966--Ultra vires parent Act-Respondents in circumstances could only challenge Assistant Settlement Commissioner's order in manner prescribed…