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. K‑97 of 1969, decided on 28th January 1970.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi; dated the 27th May 1969, in L. P. A. No. 95 of 1969).
- Art. .98‑Writ jurisdiction Finding of Settlement Authorities as to divisibility of house‑Can not be interfered with by High Court in writ jurisdiction Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVI1I of 1958), Sched., Part I.
A. H. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. I. Memon, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 28th January 1970
‑The dispute in this case relates to House No. A/115‑2265/1‑2 Hyderabad which consists of two‑bed rooms and one sitting room on the ground floor, three rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. The two‑bed rooms on the ground floor are in possession of Mistri Muhammad Umar, the third respondent herein, but the sitting room on the ground floor as well as the entire first floor and the room on the second floor have been in possession of the petitioners. Mistri Abdul Aziz, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was allotted the entire building on the 9th February 1948. In 1959, he submitted a C. H. Form for the transfer of the entire building. In the same year, the respondent No. 3 also submitted a C. H: From. A P. T. O. was issued in favour of Mistri Abdul Aziz in respect of the rooms in his possession and another P. T. O. in favour of the respondent No. 3 was issued in respect of the rooms in his possession. Mistri Abdul Aziz went on appeal and succeeded in getting an order of transfer of the entire building. The respondent No. 3 filed successive applications for revision but did not succeed. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the transfer of the entire building to Mistri Abdul Aziz. The High Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to rehear the parties and to come to a conclusion whether the ground floor could be con veniently divided from the first and the second floors and transferred as a separate unit. The Deputy Settlement Commis sioner took the view that the house in question is an indivisible single unit, but, on appeal by the respondent No. 3, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, after spot inspection, held that the house, in fact, consisted of two separate and independent residential units. Mistri Abdul Aziz filed a revisional application against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner holding that the house consisted of two separate and independent residential units but did not succeed. Thereupon, the present petitioners as successors‑in‑interest of Mistri Abdul Aziz filed Writ Petition No. 75 of 1965, but it was dismissed on merits. A Letters Patent Appeal taken against the order dismissing the writ petition was also dismissed. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal against the order of the Letters Patent Bench.
It appears that the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the question of divisibility of the house being a question of fact and the same having been decided by the settlement authorities after taking into consideration the various factors, no challenge to that finding of fact could be made in the writ petition. The view taken by the learned Judges is correct. When the settlement authorities arrived at a finding that the house is divisible, no interference with that finding by the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction is permissible.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer