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

NAZIR AHMAD versus MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN


The Schedule, Part I, contains the amount of the House Compensation Transfer Respondents' book that the settlement authority has left. Should the balance be adjusted towards the payment of the equilibrium price in the dispute, and if not, the equity would be in favor of such defendant.

P L D 1983 Supreme Court 86

Present : Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ

Malik NAZIR AHMAD--Petitioner

versus

MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AHD others Respondents

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 65/R of 1982, heard on 31st October, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 27th February, 1982 in Writ Petition No. 658/R of 1980).

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

--Sched., Part I-Transfer of house---Compensation book of contesting respondent having been lying with Settlement authority its amount, held; should have been adjusted towards payment of balance price of house in dispute and such having not been done, equity lay in favour of such respondent.

Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 31st October, 1982.

ORDER

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 27-2-1982 whereby the writ petition impugning the legality of the order of the Settlement Commissioner Rawalpindi (respondent No. 4)'transferring House No. P/1307 situate in Mohallah Kartarpura, Rawalpindi by accepting the revision petition against the order of its resumption, was dismissed.

2. Malik Nazir Ahmad, petitioner, a local, was in possession of the ground of the house in question while Suleman Shah, respondent No. 3, a displaced person claimant, was in occupation of the upper portion of the house. On his application, the entire house was transferred to him against the price of Rs. 11,040 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi on 25-4-1961. He associated Muhammad Ali Khan, respondent No. 1 a displaced person claimant, and surrendered his rights in the house in the latter's favour. Respondent No. 1 deposited two compensation books with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the adjustment of the price. In one compensation book the compensation was worth Rs. 6,217.13 while in the other, the valuation was Rs. 3,363. The amount of the first compensation book was adjusted against the price of the house in question leaving a balance of Rs. 4,822.87. However, the amount available in the second compensation book was not adjusted by the Settlement Authorities, and it remains intact lying in. the Settlement Office. The Settlement Authorities, then under the impression that the balance had not been paid, cancelled the allotment in favour of respondent No. 1 and included the house in the Auction List.

3. Respondent No. 1 applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the adjustment of amount of compensation available in his second Compensation Book and for the deletion of the house from the Auction List. Accordingly the case was sent back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to verify the claim of respondent No. 1 and if his claim be correct, the house should be struck off from the Auction List.

4. On 21-4-1973 the house in question was transferred, by negotiation, to Abdul Rashid respondent .No. 2 for Rs. 9,000- who surrendered his rights in the house in favour of Malik Nazir Ahmad petitioner. This was questioned by respondent No. 1 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner without any favourable result. He then filed a revision which was also dismissed on 13-4-1974. Thereafter, he filed writ petition in the High Court assailing the validity of the above-mentioned order transferring the house to respondent No. 2 which was accepted vide the impugned judgment.

5. We have examined the facts and the contention of the learned counsel and find that the matter has been dealt with legally by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. It is evident that the compensation book of respondent No. 1 was lying with the Settlement Authority and as such its amount should have been adjusted towards the payment of the balance price of the house in dispute but it was not done by the Settlement Authority for no fault of respondent No. 1. As such equity in this case is in favour of respondent No. 1. This petition, therefore, is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

S. A. H, 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 high court advocate from Narang Mandi 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.