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. 27 of 1971, decided on 28th June 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 22nd December 1971, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 142 of 1967).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXYIII of 1958),
S. 2(12) an,1 Sched. Part I‑Composite building consisting of shop and residential portion‑Settlement Authorities have power to divide property‑High Court would not interfere in writ petition unless division shown to have been carried out arbitrarily or capriciously.
Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Masud Akhtar, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Date of hearing : 28th June 1972.
‑The petitioners are brothers and the respondents are father and son. The disputed property is a composite one consisting of two double‑roomed shops on the ground floor and a residential portion behind them and a chaubara on the first floor covering the entire structure on the ground floor. The respondents are admittedly in possession of a part of the property in dispute.
Both the petitioners had filed joint 'C. S.' and 'C. H.' Forms. By an order dated 20‑11‑1959 the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner transferred the entire property to the petitioners. On appeal by the respondents the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 23‑8‑1960, divided the property between the parties. The respondents were given the shop which was in their possession along with a half of the verandah pertaining to the shop, and two rooms and a kitchen behind the shop. The rest of the property was transferred to the petitioners. The revision petitions filed by both the parties were rejected by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 15‑2‑1961. Similarly the Second Revision Petitions of the two parties were rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 13‑1‑1962. Both the parties then made writ petitions before the Lahore High Court and they were dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
The High Court has held that the power to divide a com posite building in terms of the second proviso to Clause (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act, 1958 rests with the Settlement Authorities and the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of that power unless it has been shown that it has been carried out arbitrarily or capriciously. The Court had further held that the division was neither improper nor against the provisions of law. The High Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the division of the building.
The High Court's view is correct. It is apparent that sub stantial justice has been done to the parties concerned. The respondents have no other house for residence.
We do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. 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