| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 495 1982 SLD 495 1982 SCMR 845 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 725 of 1974, decision dated: 17-11-1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-04-1974 in Writ Petition 735-R/74)
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate for Petitioner. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 725 of 1974, decision dated: 17-11-1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-04-1974 in Writ Petition 735-R/74)
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate for Petitioner. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
QUTAB DIN
VS
SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, ETC.
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched.-Concurrent findings of fact by Settlement Authorities on question whether or not property in dispute consisted of two independent units-Held, could not be set aside by High Court in limited constitutional jurisdiction. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J.-The dispute in this petition for leave is about a one-third portion of a house in Khanewal. Multan District, bearing number 51 in block No. 11. This house was occupied by three persons, One Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner and the third respondent to whom we will refer as the respondent. The petitioner claims to have filed a C. H. form for the entire house on 17-2-1959 and Mr. Farooq stated that the petitioner's application was allowed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 10-12-1959. However, even learned counsel admitted that this order was not correct, because the portion of the house occupied by Muhammad Ramzan was admittedly non-evacuee, therefore, to this extent at least the petitioner's C. H. form was illegally allowed. Be that as it may, the respondent had filed an N. C. H. form and learned counsel stated that the respondent had applied for house number 50,, not for house number 51 although he was living in house number 51. His application was also allowed on 23-I1-1959. Then two years later, the petitioner filed an eviction application against the respondent for his eviction in the Court of a Rent Controller and Mr. Farooq stated that this application was disposed of by compromise because the respondent had attorned to the petitioner. However, after admitting the petitioner's title, according to Mr. Farooq, the respondent filed an application for the amendment of this N. C. H. form and the prayer in this application was that he bad applied for the house in his possession and that he had inadvertently described this house as number 51. This application was dismissed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, but as an Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the respondent's application, the petitioner filed a revision against the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order which was…
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