Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 173 of 1980, decided, on 26th November, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5-12-1979, in I. C. A. No. 195 of 1979).

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

Transfer of property-Concurrent finding of Settlement Authority and High Court on question of fact whether transfer order in dispute genuine or fictitious-No omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law pointed out-Held, no interference called for in matter.

Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Hussain A wan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th November, 1980.

This is a petition against an order dated 5-12-1979, passed in an Inter-Court Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court, whereby an order dated 3-6-1979 of a Single Judge, dismissing Writ Petition No. 576-R of 1979 was maintained. The dispute in this case is about a small piece of land bearing No. E/1937, situated in Koocha Chak Talian inside Lohari Gate, Lahore. To avoid the unnecessary details and confining our selves to the strict relevant facts it may be mentioned that the Deputy Settle merit Commissioner by his order dated 12-5-1979, after going through all the attending facts and detailed history of the case held that this plot had been rightly transferred to Muhammad Yasin, respondent No. 2, herein on 23-5-1960. The petitioner claims this property on the basis of an auction which was held long after the aforesaid transfer on 30-12-1970, in favour of one Mumtaz Khan with whom the petitioner associated later. Learned counsel has argued that the transfer order dated 23-5-1960, in favour of the respondent was a bogus and fictitious order and therefore the auction in favour of his client in the circumstances should be considered to suffer from no infirmity. The contention has no merit. The question whether the transfer order in favour of the respondent concerned was genuine or fictitious is one of fact on which there are the concurrent findings of the High Court and the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the aforesaid order was genuine and was quite operative in the field and as such during the subsistence of that order, no auction of the property could have validly taken place. Learned counsel could not point out any omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law to interfere with the view hereinbefore mentioned.

2. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

The petition 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.