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. 500 of 1966, decided on 9th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th July 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1057 of 1966).
S. 2 (3)‑Word "property,"‑Afeans immovable property‑Person a local but at time of partition abandoning household goods in Gurdaspur (India)‑Not a "displaced person'' within meaning of S. 2 (3).
Petitioner in person.
Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Razzaque Raja, Attorney for Respondent No. 2.
Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing : 9th October 1967.
‑The petitioner's claim to the transfer of an evacuee bungalow situated in Lahore has been ruled out by the Settlement authorities on the finding that he is a local. Aggrieved by it he moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction for quashment of the orders of the Settlement authorities on the ground that as he had abandoned household goods in Gurdaspur (Punjab) India where he was posted as an Extra Assistant Commissioner in August 1947, he was within the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act displac ed person. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court from which the petitioner seeks Special Leave to Appeal.
It is admitted that the petitioner belongs to Pindi Bhattian, district Gujranwala, and as such he would be a local, but it is con tended that since he was not able to "supervise" and "manage" his property in India he was within the purview of section 2 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act a dis placed person. A displaced person' is defined in section 2 (3) of the Act as follows:‑
means any person who on account of the setting up of the Dominions of Pakistan and India, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of or occupied by India, has, on or after the first day of March 1947, left or been displaced Prom, his place of residence in such area and has subsequently become a citizen of Pakistan, or is residing therein, and includes any person who, being a resident of any territory outside India, is for that reason unable to manage, supervise or control any property belonging to him in India or in any area occupied by India, and also includes the successor‑in‑interest of any such person.
The petitioner placed reliance on the latter part of the definition, but it postulates that the property' to be 'managed' and super vised' exists and per se applies to immovable property or some rights therein. This is also born out by the fact that no claim in respect of movable property could be made under the Claims Registration Act. The petitioner's household goods being no, longer in existence when the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act came into force, it was not tenable to maintain that he was unable to supervise or manage them.
The petitioner has thus been rightly held to be a local and as such he was in law not entitled to the transfer of the bungalow in his occupation.
The petition is 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