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. 265 of 1969, decided on 30th October 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5‑th May 1969, in L. P. A: No. 188 of 1969).
S. 2(4) & Sched., Part I‑House, whether divisible‑Matter primarily falling within discretion and jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction unless decision of Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegate fanciful or capricious.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Dates of hearing : 29th and 30th Octobe1969.
‑The petition, who is 'a retired officer of the Provincial Civil Service, has beer persistently litigating with his sister's son, the respondent Kazi Masud Afzal Khan, full share in a portion of the bungalow bearing No. S. 86-R-7/B situated on the Ferozepur Road, Lahore, which has been transferred to the latter by the Settlement Authorities as single indivisible residential unit under Settlement Scheme No: 8 against his L. H. form. The disputed bungalow originally consisted of two units marked as S. 86. R, 7 /A and S. 86. R. 7/B. Unit A' stands permanently transferred to one, Kh. Ghulam Sadiq. Unit B', which is the subject‑matter of the dispute, was allotted to the respondent, Kazi Masud Afzal Khan, as for back as the 1st of October 1955. According to the finding of the Deputy Settle ment Commissioner as well as the Additional Settlement Commis sioner who had inspected the spot in connection with the dispute between the parities, the petitioner was permitted to occupy a portion; of the disputed premises as a licensee by the respondent, to accommodate him as he was unable to find a place for himself when he came to Lahore on transfer from Hafizabad. The Settle ment Authorities have held that as a licensee the respondent could not claim the, transfer of the louse of the basis of his permissive possession and, in any case; as the disputed portion of the house is indivisible, the petitioner's claim for its further sub‑division is untenable. In the High Court, both the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Bench, have affirmed this view of the Settlement Authorities and declined to give relief to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction.
It is clear that the bungalow which already stood divided into two portions, could not b, further sub‑divided. The petitioner's insistence for a further sub‑division of the house is wholly without merit as fig cannot claim it as of right even if it were to be held that he was in occupation of a portion of the disputed premises in his own independent right for which there is no basis. Whether a house should be disposed of as a single unit or is capable of division, is primarily a matter which falls within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 2 (4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and is not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction, unless the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegates is found to be capricious and fanciful. This is not the position in the present case. There is no substance whatsoever in this petition which 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