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. 300 of 1967, decided on 23rd February 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 7th April 1967, in Writ Petition No. 227/R of 1964).
--- Sch., Part I and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98‑Transfer of house‑High Court in writ jurisdiction whether competent to substitute its own finding on question of fact‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Qadir Bakhsh Chaudhri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 23 February 1968.
The subject‑matter is the transfer of an evacuee house No. 83‑B‑4, Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are in possession of the house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 29‑9‑1959 transferred the whole house including the portion in possession of the petitioner to the respondent No. 4, but the order was eventually set aside by the Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner who found that the house consisted of two independent residential units and apportioned them between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in accordance with their occupation.
The High Court has, in writ jurisdiction, set aside the orders of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the finding that the petitioner did not file an N. C. H. Form before the entire house was on 29‑9‑1959 transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the respondent No. 4. Reference was made in this respect to the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 14th March 1960 by which he had permitted the petitioner to file an N. C. H. Form for transfer of the. house in his occupation.
It is maintained that the learned Judges were not right in concluding that the petitioner had not filed an N. C. H. form when the entire house was transferred to the respondent No. 4. On the contrary he did file and N. C. H. Form in time which was misplaced in Office and on that ground the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had permitted him to file a fresh N. C. H. Form on the 14th March 1960. It is further contended that in any case the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, could not substitute its own finding on a question of fact and at best should have remanded the case to the Settlement authorities for determination.
The question raised in support of the petition requires consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Security‑Rs. 1,000.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer