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. 79 of 1972, decided on 4th July 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 9th December 1971, in L. P. A. No. 100 of 1965).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),
Sehed., Part II‑Shops and godowns‑Chief Settlement Commissioner, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision has power to intervene and declare godown to be not appurtenant to shop‑Finding, one of fact and based on relevant materials‑High Court, held, justified in not interfering with order in exercise of writ jurisdiction‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.
A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wall Mohammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 4th July 1972.
The dispute is over two godowns, which were found by , the Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be not appurtenant to and having no connection at all with the shops allotted to the petitioners. The godowns are separated from the shops by a passage.
The petitioners, to whom the said godowns were originally allotted, have contended that the Settlement Commissioner has illegally intervened in the matter in the exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction, and ordered that the godowns be put to auction.
The learned Judges of the High Court have rightly held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was legally entitled to interfere in the exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, and that his findings are findings of fact based on relevant materials and that the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962‑Constitution cannot interfere.
It has also been contended that as no previous notice was given to the petitioners as regards the exercise of the revisional powers suo motu, the impugned order of the Settlement Commis sioner is illegal. We find no substance in this contention. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners inasmuch as they were present before the Settlement Commissioner and bad full opportunity to press their claim.
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