Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 395 1981 SLD 395 1981 SCMR 708
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 566 of 1:979, decision dated: 25-11-1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19-5-1979, in W. P. 503-R/79)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JJ
Mubashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for ;
Respondents.

Haji MUHAMMAD ARIF

VS

SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER.(WITH POWERS OF ADMN. (RESIDUAL PROPERTIES) MULTAN DIVISION AND another

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Finding of settlement authorities holding petitioner not in, occupation of shop in dispute in his own right -Held : A finding of fact not open to challenge in special leave to appeal proceedings. ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about ' a Shop No. 54 situated, in Ward No. 1, Salim Akhtar Road, Mailsi, district Vehari. It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the litigation through which the present case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of, the present order to mention that the petitioner filed a form for transfer of this shop under a scheme known as "Scheme for the Management and disposal of available urban properties" published in the Gazette of. Punjab, Extraordinary, 31-1-1977 and also in P L D 1977 Punjab Statutes at page, 62, generally called by the lawyers, as Scheme No. 9. The form of the petitioner was accepted on 11-1-1978 by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Multan, Vehari, and the shop was transferred to him. . 2. The rival applicant lust. Sakina (respondent No. 2, herein) who had also filed .a similar form challenged that order by a revision petition which was accepted on 20-3-1979 by the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) Administrator (Residual Properties), Multan Division. The learned Additional Commissioner reversed the order of Deputy Settlement Commis­sioner and held that, from the material produced before him, it appeared that the petitioner was not in occupation of the shop in his own right and was holding the same as a tenant under Mst. Sakina. In the light of this factual finding be then held that under the law a tenant could not claim transfer of a shop in preference to his landlord who may have also applied for getting the same shop: Consequently he transferred that shop to Mst Sakina. 3. The petitioner then filed a constitutional petition in the High Court being W. P. 503-R/79 but without any success as, the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 19-5-1979, with a short observation that the view of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492