Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 94 1966 SLD 94 1966 PLD 817
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1965, decision dated: 14th July 1966.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Aftab Hussain Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney No. 1. Major Ishaq Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Khan, Attorney N

BARKAT ALI

VS

(1) MUHAMMAD SHARIF, AND (2) SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) - Leave to appeal-Granted by Supreme Court where point involved was of "general importance", namely, whether a local allottee in part possession was in a preferential position as against a non-­allottee claimant in part occupation. The point arising in the case was whether a local who was an allottee was in a preferential position, as against a claimant in occupation, without an allotment in his favour. The point being one of general importance, leave to appeal was granted to consider it. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 2(6), 3 & 4, Schedule, para. I read with Pakistan Government Notification No. F-1(27)59-SI dated 13-10-1959 issued under S. 2(6)-Words "final order" occurring in Notification, do not mean an "allotment" order simpliciter, but connotes an order under which "right to acquire property may have been recognised" -"Claimant" in "undisputed" occupation of part of house from prior date though not holding an "allotment" order preferred to local holding such order-Central Government's Notification dated 3-8-1960 under second proviso to cl. (c) of S. 2, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV1II of 1958)-[Writ Petition No. 834-R of 1962 (Lah.) (unreported) dissented from]. Held, the words "final order" in the Notification (No. F.1(27) 59-SI dated 13-10-1959) cannot be equated with a mere "allotment order", but must connote an order under which the right to acquire property may have been recognised, even though it may not amount to an order of actual transfer of the property in question. As no such order existed in favour of the appellant in the present case, even though he had an allotment order to fall back upon, the respondent's position could not be effectively assailed by him, since he was in undisputed occupation from a prior date and was a claimant in addition. A vested right to the transfer of property acquired under section 3, was created in favour of claimants and although there was to be a rehabilitation pool for displaced persons, other than claimants, consisting of a cash amount, no provision was made for rehabilitation of…
🔒
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