Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1980, decided on 16th March, 1983.

(From the judgment, dated 8‑7‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 59/R and 426/R of 1978).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Claim of petitioner for transfer of property dealt with adequately by Settlement Department and High Court‑Site plan of properties involved and record showing nothing calling for interference with order of High Court‑Leave to appeal refused.

Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instruc ted by Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).

Nemo for Respondent.

A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Petition No. 1008 of 1980).

Date of hearing: 16th March, 1983.

‑The case involves a factual controversy whether Plots 80‑B and 82‑B are integral part of bungalow at Plot No. 8i‑B, Model Town, Lahore. These three contiguous Plots were owned by one evacuee. Petitioner Lt: Col. (Retd.) Ishtiaq‑ur‑Rehman Khan had applied for transfer of the bungalow on Plot No. 81‑B and the same had been transferred to him under P. T. O., dated 30‑12‑1959. An application bad, however, been made through his attorney for deletion of the other two plots from the auction list and an order had been passed on 15‑4‑1960 holding that Plot No. 82‑B was an integral part of the Bungalow No. 81‑B and should be transferred to the petitioner on valuation price. The other plot, that is, No. 80‑B, was, however, allowed to remain in the list. A further order had been made on 13‑5‑1960 by Mr. J. D, Malik fixing the transfer price. But none of the orders is said to have been conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner again applied for purchase of the plots but his plea was refused on 23‑9‑1961 on the ground that he owned a house. In the meantime, Plot No. 80‑B was transferred in favour of Imtiaz Ahmad Bhatti respondent on 14‑5‑1961. The transfer was cancelled but was later restored on 20‑3‑1962. The petitioner and his other relatives filed appeal in the result of which the matter was remanded on 2‑2‑1963 for fresh decision. The order of remand was challenged unsuccessfully in the High Court by writ petition and later by Letters Patent Appeal. On remand, the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 23‑7‑1977 held that the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer of the other two plots. He also held against Imtiaz Ahmed Bhatti and directed that both the plots be disposed of by auction. Both parties filed writ petition, the one filed by the petitioner (W. P. No. 59/11/1978) was dismissed but the other filed by Imtiaz Ahmed Bhatti (W. P. 426/11/1978) was accepted, vide order, dated 8‑7‑1980. This led to the filing by the petitioner of the present two petitions, namely, C. P. No. 1007 of 1980 arising from Writ Petition No. 59/11 of 1978 and C. P. No. 1008 of 1980 arising from Writ Petition No. 426/11 of 1978.

2. After bearing learned counsel at length and going through the case including the site plan of the. properties involved; we are satisfied that no case has been made out for an interference with the order of the High Court. The finding of fact concerning the petitioner's claim has been dealt with adequately by the Settlement authorities as well as by the High Court and no interference is called for. Both the petitions are 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.