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. 862 of 1980, decided on 22nd December, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑2‑1980, in W. P. 1356‑R/77).
----Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. and Settlement Scheme No. VI Point whether Ihata in dispute was part of shop transferred to peti tioner‑Finding of Settlement Commissioner on such point of fact neither erroneous nor suffering from any omission or misreading of record‑Held, could not be taken exception of by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction-Order of High Court dismissing writ petition upheld.
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sharif Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd December, 1980.
‑It is not necessary to go into the lengthy stages of the litigation and the forums through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to mention that ultimately the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 20‑3‑1961, held that Muhammad Shafi, respondent herein was entitled to the transfer of an Ihata in dispute under Settlement Scheme No. VI and that he should be issued the relevant transfer document on recovery of usual dues and transfer price. The petitioner who is a transferee of a shop (in the same building) filed a constitutional petition being W.P. 1356‑R/77, in the High Court, for claiming the transfer of the aforesaid Ihata in addition to shop already transferred to him on the ground that it was a part and parcel of the said shop. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 26‑2‑1981, holding that the finding of the settlement authorities that the Ihata was an independent unit and not part of the portion, transfer to the petitioner was unexceptionable and could not be interfered with. Zaheer‑ud‑din petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel but we must say that the point whether the Ihata is a part of the shop transferred to the petitioner is on of fact and finding thereon by the settlement department rightly held by the High Court could not have been taken exception to in its constitutional jurisdiction. Learned Commissioner has given cogent reasons in support of his view and we find nothing erroneous therein which could have warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, particularly when it did not suffer from an omission or misreading of record.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit 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