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. 59 of 1970, decided on 6th June 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 11th May 1966, in L. P. A. 218 of 1966).
‑‑-S. 2(4)‑House‑Divisibility ‑‑ Property described in taxation record as one house consisting of two residential units‑‑Plan for construction submitted to Municipal Committee as one house‑ Subsequently third brother also taking up residence and all three brothers occupying different portions and giving different names to such portions but no structural division made‑House, held, con stituted only one unit.
Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1965 S C 404 held not applicable.
Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record. for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 : Ex parte.
Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Dote of hearing : 6th June 1975.
.‑The house No. 1, S. 3, Block No. 13, Sargodha, has been disposed of under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, in two parts. The portion on the left side has been transferred to one Mr. Zaidi and the portion on the right given to Mir Akram Mahmood, respondent No. 2. Both are claimant displaced persons and had filed C. H. Forms at the commencement of the settlement operations in 1959.
Ch. Muhammad Asghar appellant, is in possession of a portion of the residential; unit transferred to respondent No. 2. He is a non‑claimant and filed N. C. H. Form for transfer of the portion in his possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the house into 3 parts and gave to the appellant the portion in his possession but on appeal the Additional Settlement Commissioner found that the house consisted of only two residential units and excluded the appellant, who, being a non‑claimant, had no entitlement as against Mr. Zaidi and respondent No. 1. The order was maintained on revision by the Settlement Commissioner. The appellant, thereupon, filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that the decision by settlement authori ties about the divisibility of the house was not open to review in writ jurisdiction. The order was affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant.
Leave to appeal was obtained by the appellant on the plea that in fact there were three separate houses owned by three separate persons and the settlement authorities had acted illegally in transferring two houses to respondent No.2.
Our examination of the record discloses that property No. 1, S. 3 also described in the Taxation Register as No. 2/2 is one house consisting of two residential units. The plan for construction of the house was submitted to the Municipal Committee, Sargodha, by Bhai Hari Singh and Bhai Sujana Singh, sons of Bhai Kalyan Singh, as one house. It appears that after construction of the house, their third brother Bhai Sohail Singh joined theme and all the three took up residence in different portions. They also gave different names to their respective portions. There was, however, no structural division of the property into three separate houses. Consequently in the Taxation and Municipal Records, it continued to bear on a number 2/2. The annual value of each portion was fixed at Rs. 21 6 but in column No. 13, the total annual value was calculated at Rs. 516. It was, therefore, wrong to say that property No. 1, S. 3 consists of three separate houses or that the settlement authorities have transferred two houses to respondent No. 2. It is specifically mentioned in the orders passed by the settlement authorities and the High Court that on the roof of the portion transferred to respondent No. 2, there is a room which extends over the portion in possession of the appellant This brings out that the portion transferred to respondent No. 2 is a single residential unit. The dictum in Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1965 S C 404) on which the appellant relied has thus no application to the fact of the present case.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer