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 Appeals Nos. 27 and 28 of 1977, decided on 16th June, 1979.
(From the judgments and orders dated 24‑1‑1972 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in L. P. As. Nos. 1146 and 1166 of 1966 respectively).
---Transfer of evacuee property‑Local Commissioner appointed to demarcate two houses in dispute‑Such Commissioner instead of demarcating boundary line separating two houses, proceeding to 'devise a more equitable way of dividing houses"‑Held, report submitted by Commissioner, not being‑ in accordance with directions of Supreme Court, cannot be accepted.
Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in both the Appeals).
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th June, 1979.
During the course of hearing of these two appeals on 14‑5‑1978 this Court had 'passed an order with the consent of the learned counsel for the two contesting parties appointing the Chief Engineer of the Lahore Municipal Corporation as a Commissioner for demarcating the boundary line separating the two houses in question bearing property Nos. 45 and 47 Empress Road, Lahore, after taking into full consideration the earliest available authentic municipal and taxation record of these properties. The learned Commissioner has since submitted his report. Against it the learned counsel for the appellant has filed his objections in writing. We find that instead of demarcating the boundary line separating the two houses, the learned Local Commissioner has proceeded to devise a more equitable way of dividing these houses. Therefore, the report submitted by him is not to accordance with the directions issued by this Court and cannot be accepted.
He has devoted his time and energy in compiling his report under the order passed by this Court with the agreement of the parties. His fees are therefore, fixed at Rs. 1,000 which may be paid to him by the petitioners/appellants and respondent No1 in equal shares.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer