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. 133 of 1968, decided on 27th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 14th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 199/R of 1964).
--Sched. Part I‑Person transferred whole property on basis of his C. H. Form by Settlement authority‑High Court in writ jurisdiction holding that he was not entitled to anything more than portion in his occupation‑Whether High Court's order justified‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Mahmood Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ch. M: Siddiq, Senior Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 27th June 1968.
‑The subject‑matter in dispute in this case is a big bungalow bearing No. 28‑29‑30/B. VII. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan Division while disposing review petitions by his order dated the 6th December 1963, transferred a portion of property No. 28 to Sardar Abdul Aleem (respondent No. 1) and the rest of it to Sh. Taj Din (respondent No. 2). Property No. 30 was transferred to the petitioner Ch. Abdur Rahim. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner transferring property No. 29 to Mr. A. R. Rohilla was affirmed.
Sardar Abdul Aleem filed a writ Petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore against the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the order referred to above and claimed that the whole of the bungalow consisting of properties Nos. 28, 29 and 30/B. VII together with the servants quarters should have been transferred to him.
The High Court has held that Sardar Abdul Aleem being a claimant in possession of a portion of property No. 28 was entitled to the whole of the property in the absence of a finding by the Settlement Authorities that it was divisible and capable of being converted into two or more residential units. In this view of the matter the learned Judges in the High Court restored the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner transferring the whole of property No. 28 to Sardar Abdul Aleem.
In regard to property No. 30 it has been found that as the present petitioner claimed the portion of it which was in his possession he was not entitled to anything more than that and the rest should go to Sh. Taj Din as decided by the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
Mr. Mahmood Ali, has argued that the High Court has not' applied the same principle in the case of property No. 30 which has been applied to property No. 28. It is then contended that the observations of the learned Judges that the petitioner had claimed only the portion of property No. 30 which was in possession is not correct. Our attention is drawn to the copy of the C. H. form filed by him at page 105. The learned counsel has also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to transfer a portion of property No. 30 to Taj Din.
The points raised merit consideration We accordingly grant leave.
Security in the sum of 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