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) No, 650 of 1976, decided on 14th March, 1983:
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16‑3‑1976 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in L. P. A. No. 369 of 1966).
--- Art. 185(3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2(12)‑Leave to appeal‑Contention that there being two opposing decisions on question of property being composite property ; one by Deputy Settlement Commissioner and other by Additional Settlement Commissioner while Settlement Commissioner has applied his mind and upheld decision of Deputy Settlement Commissioner Circumstance indicating that Settlement Commissioner after due application of mind ha.‑ found that composite property was liable to be transferred as house, a finding given by him in exercise of power under S. 2(12)‑Contention requiring further consideration, leave to appeal granted with liberty to parties, to add further documents.
S. M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th March, 1983.
The question was whether the room in dispute, which is a part of a composite property, formed a part of the house transferred to the petitioners or was an independent unit liable to be transferred as a commercial premises. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner found that the room in dispute formed a part of the house and transferred the same to the petitioners on their C. H. form. This finding was reversed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who held that the room in dispute was liable to be transferred as a shop. The Settlement Commissioner, on revision, restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
The learned Judges in the High Court in their impugned order have held that as the Settlement Commissioner had not consciously decided the matter under the provisions of subsection (12) of section 2 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; therefore, his order could not hold as referable to the said provision of law. The same was, accordingly, set aside and the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner declared to the be correct and legal order.
The contention before us is that there were two opposing decision on the question ; one by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the other by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the learned Settlement Commissioner had applied his mind while choosing to uphold the decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This circumstance indicated that the Settlement Commissioner after due application of mind had found that the composite property in question was liable to be transferred as a house; finding given by him in exercise of the powers under subsection (12) o section 2 of the Act.
The contention requires further consideration. Leave is granted.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents and be put up for hearing at a very early date.
M. Z. M. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer