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. 134 of 1967, decided on 28th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th November 1966, in Settlement Revision No. 104 of 1966).
--S.11‑Contention that Additional Settlement Commissi9ner had passed order in exercise of delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Report from Settlement Commissioner (Lands) called for in first instance by Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Senior, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 28th June 1968.
.‑Karam Bakhsh, the father of the petitioners, was allotted land comprising Khasra Nos. 849 and 850 in village Daultala, Tehsil Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi.
The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of some portion of the above land which has been recorded as ghair mumkin abadi. After the death of their father the petitioners became owners by inheritance and purchase of the land of Khasra Nos. 849 and 850. They filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 then filed a Miscellaneous Application in the Court of Additional Settle ment Commissioner, Rawalpindi for maintenance of status quo. The petition, however, was not accepted and it was filed.
A Revision Petition against the above order was filed in the court of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Rawalpindi Division, who accepted the same and held that 8 marlas of the land in question on which there were constructions shall stand transferred in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Settlement Scheme No.7.
The petitioners challenged this order in a Revision Petition in the High Court without success. It is contended that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had, in exercise of delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, refused to interfere with the allotment in favour of the petitioners' pre decessor and therefore the Settlement Commissioner had no power to revise the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not, however, been able to produce any notification in support of the contention.
Let a report be called for from the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Rawalpindi, as to whether there is any basis for the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
Report called for.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer