Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SAEED AHMAD KHAN versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER


Section 2 Jurisdiction The question is whether the disposable agriculture or building site has jurisdiction to decide, the decision to keep the land by lawful authority, in the circumstances, with no legal authority and The same cannot be said of the wrong constitution, Pakistan (1973), Arts 199 and 185 (3), with the finding of the settlement authorities refusing to interfere with the order of the High Court.

1981 S C M R 970

Present : Karam Elahee Chauhan and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ

SAEED AFIMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

versus

SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 903 of 1975, decided on 11th February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-7-1975, in W. P. 736-8 of 1975).

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

-- S. 2-Jurisdiction-Question whether land in dispute agricultural or building site-Settlement authorities, held, possessed jurisdiction to decide-Decision given by Settlement authorities holding land to be a building site, in circumstances, not without lawful authority and High Court's order refusing to interfere with finding of Settlement au thorities cannot be said to be erroneous-Constitution o, Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185 (3)

Tanvir Ahmad Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 11th February, 1981.

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J. -

The petitioners desired transfer of a small area bearing Khasra No. 701 as an agricultural land but having failed at the departmental levels he filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 736-R of 1975 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 23-7-1975. He has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

2. The only point argued was that nature of the land comprised in the aforesaid khasra number was agricultural whereas the Settlement and Reha bilitation Authorities have declared and treated it as a building site. It is well settled that the aforesaid authorities had the jurisdiction to give such a declaration or decision. If this is so, then their order on the subject could' not be held to be without lawful authority and the order of the High Court to interfere with the same in the circumstances cannot be called to be erroneous in any manner.

3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous high court advocate from Muridkay lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.