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 Appeal No. 31 of 1970 decided on 1st April 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 8th October 1965, in W. F. No. 677/R of 1961).
-----Sched., Part I---‑Parties, inter‑related, living in separate portions two decades coming to a settlement in Court, and agreeing to retain portions already in their respective occupation‑Appeal disposed of in terns of agreement‑Fresh P. L. D's to issue in accordance with Settlement reached‑Constitution of Pakistan (1971), Art 185(3).
Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record (Absent) for appellant.
Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 1st April 1975.
.----House No. S‑VI‑2-S-33, Rabbani Road Old Anarkali, Lahore, was an evacuee property which was vertically divided by the Settlement Authorities for purposes of transfer and a portion was given to one Abdul Hamid who is nut a party to this litigation. The dispute is confined to the other half of the premises of which the upper portion is in occupation of the appellant Muhammad Abdullah Butt non-claimant allottee and the ground‑floor is in occupation of the legal heirs of Mst. Iqbal Begum respondent a claimant non‑allottee who has since died.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settle ment Commissioner excluded Mst. Iqbal Begun on the ground that although a claimant she was merely a licensee under the allottee Muhammad Abdullah appellant. Mst. Iqbal Begum succeeded in revision before the Settlement Commissioner who excluded Mr. Butt. The latter's second revision was, however, accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who reversed a cite decision and in turn excluded Mat. Iqbal Begum. Her writ petition was accepted by the High Court, vide order dated 5‑10‑1965. The LPA filers by Muhammad Abdullah was dismissed on 9-2‑1966. Leave was, however granted to him vide this Court's order dated 11‑10‑1966 to consider the contention that Mst. Iqbal Begum being in occupation of only a garage could riot be deemed to be in possession and as such was not entitled to the transfer of the disputed portion of the premises.
3. Having been taken through the record, we cued that the contention raised before this Court in support of the petition for leave to appeal that Mst. Iqbal begum was in occupation of only tire garage is factually incorrect. In fact it was conceded by the appellant himself that she was in possession of the ground‑floor of the disputed portion of the house comprising three rooms and a garage which also appears to have been used for residential, purposes.
4. The parties, wino are related inter se and have been living in two separate and independent portions for the last two decades have come to a settlement in Court. They have agreed to retain the portions already in their respective occupation. The appeal is disposed of in accordance with the above agreement between the parties. We may, however, add that fresh P. T. Ds. will be issued to them by the D. S. C. in accordance with the settlement reached between them.
Order accordingly
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer