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. K‑233 of 1980, decided on 9th May, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court dated 10th May, 1980 in Constitutional Petition No. 863 of 1975).
‑‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re habilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 and Sched. and Perma nent Transfer (Houses and Saops) Rules, 1961‑Clarification as to exact portions of property transferred to parties under Permanent Transfer Deed issued to them‑Held, within jurisdiction and com petence of Settlement Authorities.
Anwar Hussain‑ v. Sarfraz Ahmad P L D 1971 S C 669 ref.
Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Akhtar Mahmud, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th May, 1981.
This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Sind High Court dated 10th May, 1980 by which Constitutional Petition No. 863 of 1975 filed by Haji Habib, predecessor‑in‑interest of the Respondents, I‑A to I‑H, was allowed with the result that the case was remanded to the Officer concerned for fresh hearing o f the dispute between the parties.
The controversy concerns transfer of courtyard and passage to the premises bearing No. 2/1, 2/4 and 2/5 and the roof over the pre mises bearing No. 2/1 situated in Building No. B.R, 5/22/5 and 6 Bunder Road, Karachi, These premises were transferred to the petitioner and PTD was issued to him. Haji Habib was transferred premises on the third floor of the Building bearing Nos. 3/1 and 3/2.
The order of the learned Single Judge in the High Court is based on the observations made by the Court in Anwar Hussain v. Sarfraz Ahmad (P L D 1971 S C 669) that "after title has passed on to the person in whose favour a P.T.D. has been issued, the Settlement Authorities become functus officio to deal with that property." It was, however, clarified that in certain circumstances the Settlement Authorities are competent to interfere even after issuance of the P.T.Ds. The dispute between the parties in that case also related to transfer of roof, and it was observed under that the roof serves a dual purpose, namely, as roof of the tenement under it, and also a courtyard of that tenement, and clarification with regard to the transfer of roof is to be made by the Settlement Authorities even after P.T.D. has been issued. It was on this view of the case that this Court referred the dispute regarding the transfer of the roof in that case to the Settlement Authorities for making the clarification.
This is exactly what the learned Single Judge has directed by the impugned order and we fully endorse his views that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was for the Settlement Authorities to clarify the exact portions of the properties transferred to the parties under the P.T.D. issued to them.
On this view of the case, we find no merit in this petition and dis miss it in limine.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer