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. 249 of 1968, decided on 22nd October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th March 1968, in Writ Petition No. 988‑R of 1967).
---S. 10‑Section 10 read with S. R. 0. No. 824 of 1960‑Words "the Chief Settlement Commissioner may transfer" No vested right created in favour of "informer" to have property transferred in his name.
Abida Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir P_L‑D 1964 S C 793 ref.
Abdul Majid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mirajuddin Chaudhry, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 22nd October 1968.
The claim laid by the petitioner to the transfer of a shop in Lyallpur as an "Informer" under S. R. O. 824 of 1960 was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that in the meantime .section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act under which the S. R. O. was promulgated was amended, and the powers of transfer by the Central Government were limited to "public interest" which condition was not fulfilled in the case of an informer.
It was contended that as the petitioner had moved in the matter in 1961, before the repeal of section 10 (b) a vested right was created in his favour under section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, following .the decision in Abida Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir (P L D 1964 S C 793) held that no vested right was created in the petitioner and by order dated 12‑4‑1967 dismissed his application for transfer of the shop. The High Court has in writ jurisdiction upheld the view of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and declined to interfere with his order.
The learned counsel is unable to show that by laying infor mation with the Directorate of Enforcement regarding irregular transfer of the shop to its occupants a vested right of transfer of the shop was created in his favour. The words used in S. R. O. 824 are "the Chief Settlement Commissioner may transfer" and as pointed out in Abida Khatoon's case he, for a variety of reasons, may decline to give to an informer the property which on the information given by him‑ is proved to have been irregularly transferred. We see no ground to depart from the view adopted earlier by the Court and refuse leave to appeal. 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