| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 4 1970 SLD 4 1970 SCMR 158 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1963, heard on 25th and 26th June 1964
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Attorney for Appellants.
Respondent No. 1 . Ex parte. Mahmud Ali and Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, Senior Advocates Supreme Court (Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with them) instruct
Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1963, heard on 25th and 26th June 1964
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Attorney for Appellants.
Respondent No. 1 . Ex parte. Mahmud Ali and Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, Senior Advocates Supreme Court (Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with them) instruct
N. M. KHAN AND ANOTHER
VS
THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER. PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: SchedPart1
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 98
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part 1-Divisibility or otherwise of house-All evidence on record leading to irresistible conclusion that property consisted of two separate independent entities Settlement Authorities, held, could not treat such two independent units as one on hypothesis that one unit was annexe of the other Even on question of fact Settlement Authorities cannot arbitrarily treat what are ostensibly two separate houses as one unless there he evidence to the contrary-Such arbitrary decision open to review in writ jurisdiction before High Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Question whether inference follows from certain facts or not-Question of law-Open to review in writ jurisdiction by High Court. The question whether an inference follows from certain facts or not, is a question of law. Where, therefore, the view that prevailed with the tribunals below had been influenced by an erroneous deduction from facts which manifestly could not support such an inference, it was held that their decision was reduced to an arbitrary and illegal exercise of power and was open to review in writ jurisdiction by the High Court. (c) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part 1-"Outhouse"-Meaning. Odhams Concise English Dictionary ; Oxford English Dictionary and Wharton's Law Lexicon ref. JUDGMENT S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This is an appeal by special leave calling in question orders passed by the High Court of West Pakistan in writ jurisdiction. Two contiguous houses baring Nos. 45 and 47, Empress Road, were allotted to Mr. N. M. Khan, the first appellant, and to Dr. Abdur Rauf, the second respondent, respectively, by the Rehabilitation authorities. The allotment in favour of Mr. N. M. Khan who is a Senior. C. S. P. Officer, was made it appears, on a temporary basis on the 13th of October 1953, whereas the allotment order in favour of Mr. Abdur Rauf in respect of the other house was of the year 1955. Prior to his allotment, some other persons had been in possession of No. 47, as allottees. The order of allotment in favour of Mr. N. M. Khan made it clear that…
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