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 Review Petition No. 48 of 1967, decided on 23rd October 1967.
(In the matter of review of the order of this Court, dated the 14th April 1967, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 49 of 1967).
Sched, Part I and Settlement Scheme No. 1 and para. 22‑A‑Evaluation of house‑House valued at Rs. 300 p.a. by Excise & Taxation Department but value shown in Municipal Registers at Rs. 180 p.a.‑Held: Settlement Authorities competent to increase lower of two valuations by 50 per cent if value appears to be too low.
Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Respondent No. 5.
Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967.
The petitioner seeks review of this Court's order of the 14th April 1967, dismissing his petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court in Letters Patent appeal upholding the decision of the Settlement authorities that a house, of which the petitioner, a local, was seeking transfer, was of value exceeding Rs. 10,000. The house was valued at Rs. 300 per annum by the Excise and Taxation Department, but at Rs. 180 per annum in the Municipal Registers. The order of this Court mentions that the Settlement Commis sioner himself inspected the house, and described it as "big two‑storeyed commodious house," worth much more than appeared from the municipal assessment.
The argument now raised is that under Paragraph 22‑A of Settlement Scheme No. 1, the lower of the two valuations should have been accepted. The High Court had referred to clause (2) of this paragraph which gives power to Settlement authorities to increase the value by as much as 50 per cent. where the valuation under the formula provided in clause (1) appears to them to be too law. The condition was clearly satisfied, since the valuation by the Municipal Committee was visibly too low.
No ground for review appears. We dismiss this petition.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer