Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 402 of 1974, decided on 27th November 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 1st August 1972, in Writ Petition No. 589/R of 1968).

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),

Sched. read with S. 2(2)‑Transfer of house- Transferee not entitled to more than three times of plinth area of house transferred to him.

Muhammad Anwar Jan Durrani v. Syed Hassan Imam Kazmi and others P L D 1968 Lah. 1406 considered.

Mian Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 27th November 1972.

Petitioners' father Ch. Muhammad Ashraf was an allottee in possession of property bearing No. 17‑B/ 18‑8, situated in Model Town, Lahore. Respondent No. 5 also occupied a portion of the bungalow in the year 1950. After the Settlement operation, Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, pre decessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and respondent No. 5 filed C. H. Form for the transfer of the property in dispute. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire bungalow to the petitioners by order dated the 2nd December 1959. He directed the petitioners to pay for the land in excess of three times of the plinth area. The matter was agitated by respondent No. 5 for the division of the property in dispute. Respondent No. 5 filed a revision petition against the two separate orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated the 20th April 1962, by which the excess land was reserved for Ch. Muhammad Ashraf. This matter came up before the Settle ment Commissioner on the 17th September 1963, and the parties agreed to the following terms :‑

"The parties have agreed that this case be remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned for determining independently and afresh the exact area which constitutes three times of the plinth area of the bungalow, that the same be demarcated and transferred to Ch. Muhammad Ashraf as part of his bungalow, that the entitlement of the parties in respect of the remaining plot, which will be in excess, be determined afresh in the light of the various instructions issued by the Settlement Department."

The Deputy Settlement Commissioner took the matter on the 10th December 1963, and held as under :‑

"I hold that Ch. Muhammad Ashraf gets only the 6 kanals of the plot No. 17‑B already transferred to him and he is not entitled for any further excess area from plot No. 18‑D which at present is a garden and in view of the certificate of the Secretary of Co‑operative Model Town Society Ltd., dated 5th December 1963, filed on behalf of Muhammad Hussain, the entries that the Society will have no objection if the plot No. 18‑B is utilized for residential purpose, I hold that Muhammad Hussain is entitled for the transfer of this plot No. 18‑B on the prevailing market value. Thus, it is clear that the area of plots Nos. 17‑B and 18‑B each being 6 kanals will not be changed due to these two separate transfers to different persons, namely, Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Hussain."

This order was challenged before the Additional Settlement Com missioner which was dismissed. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was also dismissed by order dated the 29th April 1968. The petitioners challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 589/R of 1968 and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by judgment dated the 1st August 1972, has dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.

Mian Bashir Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that according to the decision of the Lahore High Court in Muhammad Anwar Jan Durrani v. Syed Hassan Imam Kazmi and others (P L D 1968 Lah. 1406), the owner of a bungalow is entitled to the adjoining plot as garden and it is being transferred as such. That may be so. The question is whether under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, a displaced person is entitled to more than three times of the plinth area of the house transferred to him. According to the definition of the house in section 2(2) of the said Act, that is not permissible. In view of this, the judgment of the High Court is perfectly correct and no exception can be taken to it. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.