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. 574 of 1976, decided on 15tb March, 1983,
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30‑3‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 254IR/1976).
‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Leave to appeal‑Petitioner contending that large number of questions raised by him not considered by High Court and writ petition disposed of by a very brief and cursory order Supreme Court having sent notice to representative of Settlement Depart ment hearing petition and perusing order of Settlement Commissioner but satisfied that criticism levelled against order of High Court not affected its essential correctness‑No fault having been found in judgment of High Court,' Supreme Court refused to interfere with order "d dismissed petition for leave to appeal,
Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3.
Dated of hearing: 15th March, 1983.
‑This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑3‑1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 254‑R of 1976 refusing to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 20‑11‑1975, whereby the claim of the petitioner was negatived.
In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a large number of questions raised by him had not been considered by the learned Judge in the High Court and that he had' disposed of the writ petition by a very brief and cursory order, a notice to the representative of the Settlement Department was issued and the petition has been heard today, at some length, in his presence.
We have carefully perused the order of the Settlement Commissioner and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner but are satisfied that the criticism levelled against the said order does not affect its essential cor rectness. In these circumstances, we cannot find fault with the learned Judge in the High Court for refusing to interfere with the said order.
This petition, therefore, has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer