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. 66 of 1970, decided on 9th April 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th January 1970, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1052 of 1966).
Sch., Part I‑Property competently declared as single unit by Settlement Authorities‑High Court, held, rightly declined to interfere with in writ jurisdiction.
S. Aftab Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th April 1970.
The property in dispute bearing Nos. 2158, 2159 and 2159‑A, Bean Street, Rawalpindi, com prising two shops below and a chaubara above, has been transferred by the Settlement Authorities in favour of Ishtiaq Ahmad, the predecessor‑ in‑title of respondents 4‑7 as one unit, the property being situated in a commercial area. Although it is not so expressly stated in the relevant order, but since the property is situated in a predominantly commercial area, the whole of it was treated as a shop and transferred as such in favour of Ishtiaq Ahmad. The petitioner brought a writ petition in the High Court on a two‑fold contention, firstly, that the property was capable of division and should have been divided in order to give one of the shops bearing No. 2159 to him as he was in its possession and secondly that Ishtiaq Ahmad had merely asked for the transfer of shop No. 2158 which was in his possession according to his C. S. Form and could not therefore be given more than that. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner was unable to substantiate his second contention and as to the first, it was observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not bound to divide the property after he formed the conclusion that it was a single indivisible unit.
At the hearing before the Letters Patent Bench, the petitioner sought to adduce proof in support of his contention that Ishtiaq Ahmad had filed a C. S. Form for one shop only which was not allowed. The other contention that the shop should have been divided, was also repelled as no exception could be taken to the view that under the second proviso to clause (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the decision lies with the Chief Settlement Commissioner whether to treat the property as one unit or not.
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench should have allowed him to adduce proof about the extent of the respondents claim.
The matter lay within the discretion of the learned Judges and does not merit interference on our part. As the property was competently declared as a single indivisible unit, it could have gone only to one person and Ishtiaq Ahmad being a claimant had obviously a superior claim against the petitioner who was a non‑claimant. This petition being without substance, 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