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. 304 of 1976, decided on 25th March, 1981.
(On appeal from judgment dated 2-2-1976 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 882/R of 1970).
---S. 2 read with Sebed., Part II and Settlement Scheme No. VII Order of Settlement Commissioner holding both shops as constituting one unit not shown to be erroneous-Order of transfer not passed, without jurisdiction-Order even if shown to be erroneous, property in dispute having been transferred in favour of respondent, nothing held, stood available for transfer in favour of petitioner under Settle ment Scheme No. VII-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Huvsain, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd March, 1981;
The petitioner, a local, was aggrieved by the fact that he had not been transferred a shop in his possession under Settlement Scheme No. VII, on the ground that the shop in his possession was part and parcel of the shop in possession of the claimant displaced person, respondent No. 4 as far back as 1963 and he had been issued Permanent Transfer Deed on 19-6-1.961, and it was three years later that the petitioner had sought its transfer.
Before the High Court the petitioner's grievance was that respondent No. 4 who had sought the transfer of the shop in possession of the petitioner as part and parcel of the shop in his possession had lost before Ch. Nabi Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 10-10-1961, which order, though made by this officer, was not signed by him as be died in the meanwhile. It was alleged that respondent No. 4 manoeuvred to have the revision heard again by the successor Settlement Commissioner notwith standing its earlier dismissal, as aforesaid, by Ch. Nabi Ahmad and obtained from the successor Settlement Commissioner a favourable order of transfer in his favour of the shop in his possession and in possession of the petitioner as a single unit.
Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the contention that revision of respondent No. 4 had been dismissed, as aforesaid, by Ch. Nabi Ahmad but argued that on merits the finding of the successor Settlement Commissioner that the two shops, one in possession of the petitioner and the other in possession of respondent No. 4; in fact, formed one unit, was contrary to record.
The High Court found that that was not so, and in any event it coup not interfere with the same as the property stood transferred to claimant displaced person for more than twelve years. Thus, it was found that the petitioner's request for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII was rightly rejected for there was no available property for transfer.
The learned counsel was at pains to point out to us that the order of the Settlement Commissioner in favour of respondent No. 4 holding the two shops to be one unit was erroneous. The order made was within jurisdiction, and even if otherwise erroneous, the fact remains that the report stood transferred in favour of respondent No. 4 and there was therefore nothing available for transfer in favour of the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VII.
This petition is, therefore, without any merit and is accordingly 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