Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 624 of 1963, decided on 9th December 1965.

S. 15‑Cash compensation to displaced persons ix East Pakistan‑Expression "settled down" in item (h) of Decla ration in Form C P.E.P.‑Used in same sense as "domiciled" Certificate of domicile issued under Pakistan ‑ Citizenship Act, 1951‑Prima facie evidence of permanent abode of person -Person belonging to East Pakistan and producing domicile certi ficate from that part of country‑Cannot be considered not to be person "permanently settled" in East Pakistan simply because he happens to be living in Karachi in West Pakistan‑Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S. 17.

S. M, Raza for Petitioner.

Wasim Rizvi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th December 1965.

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Chief Accounts Officer of the Settlement Department, Lahore dated 26th March, 1963, informing the petitioner that her claim for cash compensation on CPEP Form has been rejected on the ground that she could not be treated as a claimant permanently settled in East Pakistan.

2. After Partition Mst. Shamsa Khatoon, the petitioner and late Nasimuddin Ahmed her husband permanently migrated from India and settled down in East Pakistan. In view of this her husband's claim was verified in East Pakistan for Rs. 36,000 under Schedule II and for Rs. 8,100 under Schedule VI. in pursuance of a notification dated 30th January, 1960, which is at page 195 of the Old Settlement Manual the petitioner as the widow and the legal representatives of the deceased applied on 2nd November, 1960 to the respondent for the grant of compensation on CPEP form. Lengthy correspondence passed between the parties. At first the petitioner was asked to produce a guardianship certificate of her minor children. Later on, she had also to submit a domicile certificate obtained in 1961 from East Pakistan. On 11th February, 1963, she was informed that her claim has been rejected. This was confirmed by another letter dated 26th March, 1963. The petitioner has challenged these orders in this writ petition.

3. In support of the petition Mr. S. M. Raza, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the husband of the petitioner had permanently settled down in Fast Pakistan and his claim was also verified in East Pakistan in 1958. He came to Karachi for treatment and expired. The petitioner is claiming as legal representative of the deceased on her own behalf and on behalf of the minor children of deceased Nasimuddin Ahmed. The learned counsel contended that prima facie certificate of domicile produced by the petitioner which was issued to her on 25th April, 1961 was evidence of the fact that she had settled down in East Pakistan. He further contended that it is not open to the Department to disregard this piece of evidence unless there was same other material on the record to establish that she had permanently settled down in Karachi. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not without substance. In law, the certificate of domicile is issued under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1931, which is a prima facie evidence of the place of permanent abode of a citizen of Pakistan. Mr. Wasim Rizvi, the learned representative of the Department has not been able to produce any material to show that the petitioner has no intention to return to East Pakistan. He only argued that the petitioner applied for the compensation book from Karachi and submitted her form also from Karachi. The learned representative for the Department, however has overlooked the fact that Karachi up to 1961, was the Federal Capital and, therefore, any person residing in Karachi belonging to East Pakistan would not be considered to be its citizen simply because he happened to be in Karachi. The contention of Mr. Wasim that the words "settled down" in the notification has not been used in the same sense as the term "Domiciled" is understood ha not impressed me. In my opinion, there is not much difference between the two terms. In both the terms the underlying idea is the place where a person lives permanently. I would, there fore, hold that the Department has fallen into an error in rejecting the petitioner's claim and have based their decision on surmises and irrelevant considerations which are not permissible in law. I would, therefore, quash the impugned orders and direct the Department to hold fresh enquiry in the matter to determine the claim of the petitioner. I may add that unless very strong piece of evidence is produced to rebut the domicile certificate, it shall have to be accepted as good evidence for considering the petitioner's claim.

4. In the result, subject to the above remarks the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with no orders as to costs.

K. B. A.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.