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. 343 of 1967, decided on the 11th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th June 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 880 of 1966).
--Sched., Part I. & S. 2(6)‑Person a regular allottee of house on retirement from Government service requesting Rehabilitation Department for change of allotment in favour of his son‑Change of allotment, held, only nominal and it could not be said that thereafter person ceased to be in possession of house.
Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Khawaja Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khalil‑ur‑Rahman Chaudhri, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
Nemo, for Respondent No. 6.
Date of hearing : 11th October 1967.
‑The dispute is in relation to the transfer of a house situated in Lahore under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner found the house to be indivisible and transferred it to Mohammad Akbar, respondent, on the finding that he was a prior allottee and was in possession of the major portion of the house. The petitioner assailed the order in the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution on the plea that as a direct allottee he had preference over Mohammad Akbar who had applied for transfer on the basis of the possession of his son Abdul Hayee, respondent. The writ petition failed and the order was maintained on appeal by the Letters Patent Bench from which the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal.
It has been found that Mohammad Akbar was allotted the whole house in September 1947, and since then is in possession. However, in 1948 he retired from Government service and in order to safeguard against the cancellation of the allotment in his name on account of his falling in the category of non‑essential persons in Lahore he applied to the Rehabilitation Department for change of the allotment in the name of his son Abdul Hayee who was in Government employment at that time. On this the major portion of the house was allotted to Abdul Hayee and the remaining portion allotted to the petitioner who is in possession since then.
The High Court has found that on the facts of the case Mohammad Akbar was a direct claimant and we are in agreement with this view. As seen above he was allotted the house in September 1947, and has been in possession since then. The change of the allotment in the name of Abdul Hayee was only nominal and it could not be said that thereafter his possession was that of a licensee under Abdul Hayee. He was in possession on his own account and this satisfied the definition of possession' in section 2(6) for purposes of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.
We thus find no ground to call in question the order of transfer in favour of Muhammad Akbar and dismiss this petition.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer