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. 280 of 1967, decided on 12th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore,, dated the 17th May 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 1966).
Sched., Part II‑Transfer of shop‑Shop con sidered by Settlement Authorities divisible into two portions and transferred to their respective occupants‑Order, held, not open to interference by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑Whether a person "local" or "displaced"‑Settlement Authorities competent to decide.
Mian Fazli Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th October 1967.
The grievance of the petitioner Mst. Ahmadi Begum, against the orders passed by the Settlement authorities, in her writ petition before the High Court was, that she should have been given the whole premises in dispute instead of merely the portion in her possession, and that the respondent should not have been given the second portion. She was unsuccessful before the High Court and now seeks special leave to appeal.
Mr. Fazli Mahmood, on behalf of the petitioner has drawn our attention to the orders passed by the Settlement and Rehabili tation Commissioner, appearing at page 48 et seq of the record. The learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner held that the respondent was not a local, but a displaced person from Delhi, and that the parties had been in possession of their respective portions for several years, and he saw no ground to hold the property to be one shop, specially as it bore two numbers. He incidentally mentioned that Mst. Ahmadi Begum in her C. S. Form had asked only for the transfer of one portion bearing No. 32‑A. Mr. Fazl‑i‑Mahmood contests this recital as incorrect:' He has referred us to the C. S. Form of the petitioner which shows that she had asked for the transfer of both the portions. To that extent the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order may be open to exception. But this was not really the ground of decision adopted by him. The main round on which his order rested, was that the shop in question had been divided into' two portions since a long time and the portions were in the possession of the parties. He considered this to be a justification for dividing the property into two independent units, commercial in character. Such an order was clearly within the jurisdiction of the officer and he had also the jurisdiction to find whether the respondent was a local or a displaced person. We consider that the High Court rightly declined to interfere in this case, and we dismiss the petition.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer