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. 50 of 1967, decided on 4th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 31st October 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 508 of 1966).
, Sched., Part I‑Premises consisting of both resi dential and business units‑Chief Settlement Commissioner competent to divide property into separate units and transfer units separately.
Muhammad Anwar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 4th October 1967.
The dispute is with respect to Property No. S‑III‑10‑S‑16, Abkari Road, Lahore, which consists of a residential portion and a shop.
The residential portion was in occupation of Haji Muhammad Swaleheen and his brothers, Makhdum Hussain (respondent No. 4) and one Imamud din. The shop was in possession of Muhammad Ibrahim. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the residential portion into three separate units and transferred the portions which were in possession of Makhdum Hussain and Swaleheen and his brothers to them, respectively. As Imamuddin had not applied for the transfer of the portion that was in his possession he transferred it to the compensation pool. Similarly, as Muhammad Ibrahim had not applied for transfer of the shop he ordered for its disposal; by auction. On appeal by Swaleheen and his brothers the Additional Settlement Commissioner modified the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by dividing the residential portion into two units and gave one unit to Swaleheen and his brothers and the other to Makhdum Hussain. He, however, maintained the order of auction of the shop. Swaleheen and his brothers then filed a revision petition before a Settlement Commis sioner challenging only that part of the order by which the shop was ordered to be put to auction, but he rejected their claim because they were neither allotted nor in possession of the said shop. They then moved a writ in the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that as the property was situated in a predominantly residential area, the shop should have been transferred as a part of the house to them. The learned Single Judge while dismissing their writ petition observed :‑
"Had the property not been divided by the Settlement Authorities, the entire building should have been transferred in favour of Syed Makhdum Hussain as he was claimant and in prior possession."
The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the impugned order was passed on 29‑11‑62 and the writ petition had been filed on 1‑2‑66, i. e. after inordinate delay of more than 3 years and 3 months. The petitioners then filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge and the learned Judges while dismissing the same in limine pointed out that when any building or premises consists both of residential and business units, the Chief Settlement Commissioner is authorised by law to divide the property into separate units and to allot‑ the units separately:
Leave to appeal is sought against the above orders of the High Court. The property is situated in New Anarkali which is predominantly a commercial area. Hence, it cannot be claimed as a part of the residential portion. In any event, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the Settlement authorities in dividing the property into separate units, acted within their power and as such there is no good ground for interference with their orders.
The petition is accordingly 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