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. 1053 of 1979, decided on 5th February, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the' Lahore High Court dated 18‑11‑1979, in W. P. No. 991‑R/79).
---Read with Settlement Scheme No. 9‑Transfer of evacuee land Settlement authorities and High Court finding petitioner not in possession of disputed‑land‑Such finding not shown to be suffering from any misreading or omission of evidence‑Case not involving vio lation of any principle of law in appreciation of evidence‑No interfer ence in matter called for.
Taj Muhammad Khan Langa, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 5th February, 1980
‑The dispute in this case is about a portion of land bearing Khasra No. 4386, situated in, Ward No. 10, Multan, described more fully in the order of the Courts below. The petitioner filed a form/application for the transfer of that plot under what is describ0 generally as Scheme No. 9, which was prepared for "Management and disposal of available urban property" under the settlement laws. The form; application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 24‑10‑1978, who held the petitioner was not in possession of the aforesaid ' plot therefore he was not eligible for its transfer. On the other hand he held that the portion of plot in dispute was in actual possession of Wahid Bakhsh. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue on 6‑10‑1979.
2 The petitioner has come up in a' petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the finding of the Courts below that the petitioner was not it, possession of the disputed portion of the land is erroneous. The contention) has no merit. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner Revenue and the High Court after considering all the relevant material have found that the petitioner is not in possession of the disputed land. This is essentially a finding of fact which bas not been shown to us to suffer from any misreading or omission of evidence. The case does not involve violation of any principle of la in the appreciation of evidence and is not fit for grant of leave to appeal:
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer