Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SHABBIR HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL


The Homeless Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Schedule VI88 of XXVIII), Schedule 1, is the first question whether A or B were already allotted or settled on such a matter in the High Court covered in the writ jurisdiction. Holds the commissioner's order separate. Finding whether the High Court was justified in resolving the issue rather than remanding the matter.

1970 S C M R 84

Present : S. A. Rahman, Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ

SHABBIR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner

versus

MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 2 OTHER ‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 253 of 1967, decided on 5th October 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th April 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 596 of 1966).

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),

Sched., Part I‑Question whether A or B prior allotted or in possession of premises‑High Court in writ jurisdiction setting aside order of Settlement Commissioner on such point of such fact which required a finding‑Whether High Court was justified in adjudicating question instead of remanding case back to Settlement Authorities‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.

Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.

Wali Muhammad Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Date of hearing : 5th October 1967.

ORDER

S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑

In this case, on behalf of Shabbir Hussain, the petitioner, it is urged by Mr. Abdul Majid Khan that the High Court had set' aside the order passed in Review the Settlement Commissioner, on a point of fact on which, if it was necessary to obtain a finding, the case should have been remanded to the Departmental authorities for re‑decision. The question in dispute between the parties was, as to whether the petitioner, or the respondent, was a prior allotted, or in prior possession of the premises, in question. This was certainly a question of fact and there is a good deal of force in the contention raised that such a question should not have been adjudicated upon by the High Court: but should have been left to be decided by the Settlement Authorities.

Leave to appeal is granted as prayed. The petitioner will furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 prior to the appeal being heard. In the meantime the petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocate from Panjgur lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.