Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHULAM MUHAMMAD versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER


The distribution of vacant property cannot be interfered with under the rules relating to the leave to appeal the provisions of Section 18 and Schedule I, Arts 185 (3) and 199 Homelessness (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. That such a division is not arbitrary. High Court denies such division as arbitrary, refuses to appeal to Supreme Court not considered arbitrary

1983 S C M R 1042

Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ

GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner

versus

Ties ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ors‑‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1094 of 1976, decided on 5th March, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑9‑1976, in W. P. 927‑R of 1976).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

--Arts. 185(3) & 199‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Reha bilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched. I ‑‑‑ Leave to appeal‑Division of evacuee property under Settlement laws cannot be interfered in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court unless such divi sion found arbitrary‑High Court holding such division not arbitrary Supreme Court also not finding same to be arbitrary‑Leave to appeal refused.

(b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

--S. 10 & Sched. I‑Division of evacuee property‑Settlement Com missioner on remand of case from High Court instead of deciding same in revisional jurisdiction remanding matter to Additional Settle ment Commissioner.‑Order of Settlement Commissioner sending matter to Additional Settlement Commissioner, proper.

Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 5th March, 1983.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑

Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 22‑9‑1976 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement matter, was dismissed.

The petitioner claiming to be a displaced person (claimant) had sought transfer of an evacuee property on the basis of his possession. Muhammad Din predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 9 also was an applicant 'but failed. Ultimately on a constitutional petition filed by the respondents side, the High Court remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision of Muhammad Din's settlement revision. The Settlement Commissioner instead of deciding it himself further‑ remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who by his order dated 19‑3‑1976 divided the property vertically and transferred, thus created two units, to the aforementioned contestants. Aggrieved by the order of division, this time the petitioner filed a constitutional petition in the High Court and the same having been dismissed in limine, on 22‑9‑1976 leave to appeal has been sought from the order of the High Court.

Learned counsel while conceding that the division of an urban evacuee property under the S6ttlcaieat laws ordinarily, cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, maintained that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the division could be held to be arbitrary, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside. He has also contended that although the High Court, in the earlier round of litigation, had remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner, he instead of deciding it himself further I remanded the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, without an justification.

Learned Judge in the High Court after scrutiny of the relevant facto in connection with the vertical division of the property held that it was not arbitrary. We having done the same exercise have not reached any different conclusion. The first contention of the learned counsel essentially being one relatable to the facts of the case, has accordingly no force.

The second contention also is without any substance as it is not denied that while hearing the revision petition on remand from the High Court the Settlement Commissioner bad the power, instead of deciding the case revisional jurisdiction, to remand the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It was not only within the competence of the Settlement Commissioner but in the circumstances of the case was also, it appears, a proper order ; because after the remand to the Additional Settlement Commissioner the property in dispute was inspected by him, as a result o which he found as a fact that the same could be conveniently divided. None of the arguments of the learned counsel has any force. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous supreme court advocate from Sanghar lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.