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.
1969 S C M R 63
Present : Hamoodur Rahman, Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Petitioner
versus
DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA ANU 2 OTHBRS Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 74 of 1968, decided on 14th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 20th November 1967, in L. P. A. No. 413/ 1966).
---Sched., Part 1‑C. H. Form for transfer of house rejected by Settlement authorities on ground that applicant was not in possession of house‑high Court, held, justified in not re opening such question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 14th October 1968.
‑The dispute in this case relates to Property No. B.XVIII‑27‑S‑2 situated in Mohalla Iqbal Ganj, Gujranwala. The petitioner filed a C. H. Form for the transfer of this property but it was rejected by D. S. C. on the ground that lie was not in possession. This order was upheld on appeal and the two revisions filed by the petitioner were rejected.
In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, took the view that the Settlement authorities on the basis of the material produced before them were justified in saying that the petitioner had not been able to prove that he was in possession of the dis puted house. It was not for him to go behind this finding of fact. 'This order was affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner which was dismissed in limine. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the claim of the petitioner was in respect of property No. B.XVIR‑27‑S‑2, the Settlement authorities really took into consideration materials in regard to house No. B.XIII‑27‑S‑19. We are not impressed by this contention. The orders of the Settlement authorities clearly show that they came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in undisputed possession of the house which he claimed to be transferred in his favour. This is a clear finding of fact and the High Court rightly refused to re‑open this question in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
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