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. 839 of 1975, heard on 8th February, 1981.
(On petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-6-1975 passed in Writ Petition No. 578/R/72).
---- Art. 199-Writ-Writ petition originally filed returned with certain objections with direction to remove them within 7 days-Petitioner, however, taking two years to re-file petition, attributing delay to clerk of counsel-Writ petition in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed Question whether house in dispute rightly or wrongly demarcated A question of fact to be decided by Settlement Authority-Petitioners also found to have kept quiet when houses in question in course of demolition and bring rebuilt by other party-Petitioner however indolent throughout-Petition, held, without any legs to stand upon and rightly dismissed.-[Delay-Question of fact].
Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th February, 1981.
House No. 150 in Ward No. 14, Chiniot, District Jhang, which was in the occupation of one Ghulam Muhammad and belonged to Lai Chant, an evacuee, was purchased in an auction held by the Settlement Department by Najam-ud-Din, petitioner. He paid the full price and a P. T. D. was duly issued. An adjoining house bearing No. 125 which was owned by Ram Lal and occupied by the same Ghulam Muhammad was similarly auctioned later. Still another House No. 126 was purchased by Abdul Karim. A P. T. D. was issued to him and he sold it to the sons of Ghulam Muhammad. A dispute arose as to the property which had been transferred to Najam-ud-Din. The D. S. C. before whom the matter went held that there was no property bearing No. 150. He found that there were three houses numbering 125, 125-A and 126. The petitioner applied for the eviction of Ghulam Muhammad from House No. 150 but the Rent Controller asked him to go to the Settlement Department for demarcation of the property so that it may be conclusively found out as to which part of the property had been transferred to the petitioner.
2. An application was filed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by Ghulam Muhammad for demarcation of House No. 150, Ward No. 14, Chiniot. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner inspected the Houses Nos. 125 and 150 and examined the situation "thoroughly by checking the situation of other houses in the locality." As a result of his investigation he found that Houses Nos. 125 and 150 were adjacent houses and Ghulam Muhammad was the occupant of both of them. The sons of Ghulam Muhammad purchased house No. 125 from Abdul Karim. They then demolished houses Nos, 125 and 150 both and redesigned and rebuilt them as one pacca cemented house. He, therefore, demarcated house No. 125 and marked it as A B C' D in the plan and 150 as A D E F. He announced his order on 7-12-196 7.
3. Talib Hussain son of Ghulam Muhammad filed an appeal against this order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated i0- 5-1968 accepted the appeal. He held that Talib Hussain has rightly often held entitled to the area in his occupation by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24-6-1966 and the present D. S. C. was not justified in holding the part of his house as House No. 150.
4. Najam-ud-Din filed a revision petition which was dismissed on 4-2-1970 by the Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha. One of the grounds which found the basis of the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner was that no appeal having been filed against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24-6-1966, the matter stood finally closed and it was not open to the successors of this D. S. C. to reopen the matter and give the decision that he did.
5. Najam-ud-Din, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on the ground that it was initially flied on 29-6-1970 but was returned with certain objections which were directed to be removed within seven days. The petitioner, however, took two ears to retie the petition and the delay as attributed to the clerk of the counsel which the learned Judge held not to be a reasonable cause.
6. We fully agree with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court and would add that the question whether the house was correctly demarcated or not is patently a question of fact and, in any case, the petitioner kept quiet when the houses were being demolished and being rebuilt. He seems to have been indolent throughout. This petition has, therefore, no legs to stand upon 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