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. 450 of 1968, decided on 16th April 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd October 1968, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 229 of 1968).
Sched., Part II‑Shop, found by Settlement Authorities to be indivisible on spot inspection‑Finding conclusive.
S. M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtaar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 16th April 1969.
The dispute giving rise to this petition for special leave to appeal relates to a shop which has two portions separated by a wooden partition. One portion of the shop is occupied by the petitioner, a non‑claimant displaced person and the other by the respondent. The petitioner did not apply for the transfer of the shop or any portion of it, whereas the respondent filed a C. S. form for the transfer of the entire shop: Accordingly, the entire shop was transferred to the respondent. On an information given by the petitioner to the effect that the property in fact, consisted of two shops, the Settlement Commissioner ordered that the respondent would get only that portion of shop which is in his actual possession and the other portion would go to the evacuee pool. This order was, however, reversed by the Settlement Commissioner after the matter was remanded to him by the High Court of West Pakistan as the result of a writ petition filed by the respondent, and the entire shop was again transferred to him on the finding that the property, though divided by a wooden partition, is really one shop. 7 he petitioner challenged this latest order by filing a writ petition in the High Court, but the petition vas dismissed in limine. The petitioner then took a Letters Patent Appeal which was also dismissed in limine.
The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the property consists of two shops of which he is entitled to one on the basis of his application made on 24‑8‑63 under Scheme No. VIII. As regards the divisibility of the shop, the learned Judges of the High Court rightly said that the finding of the Settlement Commissioner arrived at after spot inspection is conclusive. The petitioner did not apply for transfer on any form when the entire shop was first transferred to the respondent; he acted merely a5 an informer. His alleged belated application under Scheme No. VIII, in the circumstances, if of no consequence.
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