Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 21 of 1968, decided on 22nd May 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1359‑R of 1964.
Sch., Part I‑House, divisibility or otherwise of‑Question for Settlement authorities to decide‑Discretion not open to review by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.
Sheikh Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Sardar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
Date of hearing : 22nd May 1968.
The petitioner who is a local laid claim to the transfer of the house in dispute valued at more than Rs. 10,000. Nathoo, respondent, a claimant displaced person, was in possession of a portion of the house and under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to its transfer. The Settlement authorities accordingly ruled out the claim of the petitioner and transferred the house to Nathoo, respondent. The High Court has declined to interfere with the order of transfer in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
It is contended that as Nathoo, respondent, had applied for the transfer of only one room in his possession he was not entitled to the transfer of the rest of the house in the occupation of the petitioner. 1t was for the Settlement authorities to decide whether the house was divisible into more than one independent residential units or not. The exercise of discretion by them in this behalf is not open to review by the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution. The position which emerges out therefore is that the Settlement authorities decided to dispose of the house as one unit and the respondent, a claimant displaced person, was given preference over the petitioner who is a local.
There was thus no substance in the petitioner's claim for transfer of the house in dispute to him under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and the Settle ment authorities had rightly rejected his L. H. Form.
The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer