| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 3098 = 1976 SLD 3098 = 1976 PLD 104 |
Quetta High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 1976, decided on 14th October 1976.
Presented By: Zakaullah Lodhi, J
Maroof Ali Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad jafer Naim for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 1976, decided on 14th October 1976.
Presented By: Zakaullah Lodhi, J
Maroof Ali Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad jafer Naim for
Respondents.
Seth ALLAH BACHAYO-Petitioner
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975
Section: 2
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) S. 2-Enquiry as to whether property in dispute is evacuee property or not Held, such proceedings could not be initiated by Settlement Authorities after repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958). Date of hearing : 7th October 1976. JUDGMENT In this petition the dispute is in respect of seven shops and godown consisting of four rooms situated on Eidpur Road, Lasbella. Prior to the partition of the Sub-continent this property belonged to Mengharaj, since an evacuee. It is urged that in the month of March. 1944 this property was sold out to the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 25,000 and as provisions of Registration Act did not extend to the Princely State of Lasbella, therefore according to the custom pravalent in the then Lasbella State the .c entry about this transaction was made in the 'Bandi' of the petitioner. It is f alleged that the entry was made in the hand-writing of Mengbaraj the sellers of the property himself. Petitioner further urges that throughout the period from 1944 to 1961 this property was never treated as Evacuee, although other properties belonging to the same evacuee owner were treated as such and were disposed of through auction. 2. On 7th May, 1974 one Badiuz Zaman made an application to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lasbella to the effect that the property in question was evacuee and as such it was liable to be disposed of in manner provided by the settlement laws. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner deputed an Inspector of his Department to submit a report. The report was accordingly submitted on 22nd May, 1974 and in the light of that report the Deputy Settlement Commissioner conducted a detailed inquiry. He examined…