Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 5333 = 1966 SLD 5333 = 1966 PLD 716
West Pakistan Lahore
Letters Patent Appeal No. 7 of 1966, decided on 1st April 1966.
Presented By: Before Anwarul Haq  and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ  
Sh. Khurshid Ahmed assisted by Altaf Sikandar for Appellant.

NAZAR  DIN MUHAMMAD-Appellant  

VERSUS

  alias NAZAR Mian            GHULAM OTHERS-Respondents SHABBIR AND

Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

Section: 2(6)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98

(a)        Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)---   ------S. 2(6)-Question of possession, having reference not merely to factum of physical possession, but also to legal definition of term "possession", ceases to be question of fact Settlement Tribunal erroneously refusing to transfer property to person entitled under law on basis of facts admitted or proved on record-High Court can interfere in such case under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962).   It is true that the question whether a person is or is not in possession of a particular property would ordinarily be a question of fact and the High Court acting under Article 98 of the Constitution would not interfere with such a finding of fact, but if the question of possession has reference not merely to the factum of physical occupation, but also to the legal definition of that term as adopted in the relevant statutes, then the question can no longer be described as a pure question of fact.   The High Court can interfere in a case where a Settlement Tribunal has erroneously refused to transfer property to a person entitled under the law on the basis of. facts admitted or proved on the record.   Mian Jamal Shah v. The Member Election Commission and others P L D 1966 S C 1; Badrul Haq Khan v. The Election Tribunal Dacca P L D 1963 S C 704 ref.   (b)       Displaced       Persons           (Compensation          and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)----   ------S. 2 (6)-Possession-A obtaining physical possession of shop under valid allotment order before 20-12-1958 and subsequently renting out same to B and B in turn sub-letting it to C-A to be deemed in possession of shop.   There is a basic distinction between the case of an allottee who has obtained physical possession in pursuance of his allot ment order and that of an allottee who has not succeeded in doing so.   The definition contemplates obtaining of possession under a valid order of allotment, and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register