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. 286 of 1967, decided on 12th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th April 1967, in Writ Petition No. 50JR of 1964).
Sched., Part I‑Division of house Law gives full power to Settlement Authority to decide as to manner in which house should be divided‑Question whether shop should be included in house‑A question of mode of division‑‑High Court, in writ jurisdic tion, held, rightly refused to interfere with order of Settlement Authority.
Abdul Khaliq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
Qamruddin Meo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq, & Co., Attorneys for Respondents Nos. 2‑4.
Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing : 12th October 1967.
The dispute in this case is with respect to property No. S‑86‑R‑59, Ferozepur Road, Lahore, which is a composite building consisting of a residential portion and 5 shops on the ground floor.
Final authority in the Settlement Department has approved of (i) the division of residential house in 4 portions and their transfer to 4 different parties on their C. H. or N. C. H. forms, and (ii) auction of the 5 shops.
One of the parties, namely, Muhammad Nawaz Khan and his 2 brothers moved a writ in the High Court against the above order, but the same was dismissed. They now seek special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.
We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the Settlement authorities were not competent to transfer the house in dispute as more than one house. The Settlement authorities acted within their jurisdiction in dividing the residential portion into 4 different units. Hence, the High Court has rightly observed that each portion is now a house as defined in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and therefore the petitioners were not entitled to more than one house'.
Some argument was also advanced as to the mode of division of the house. It will suffice to say that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain this objection, because the law gives full power to the Settlement Authority to decide as to the manner in which a house should be divided.
Similarly, the contention that the house being in a predomi nantly residential area the shops should have been included in the house, is also without any substance. It is really a question of mode of division and the Settlement Authority acted within its power in putting the shops in the auction pool.
This petition has therefore no merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer