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. 636 of 1976, decided on 26th May, 1984.
(On appeal from the Judgment, dated 10‑5‑1976 of the Lahore Hi4h Court in Writ Petition No. 684/R/1976).
‑‑ Arts. 185(3) & 199‑Dispute over transfer of evacuee property Question whether chaubara in dispute was not an independent unit Held, a question of fact on which finding already given by highest Settlement authority that High Court rightly refused to interfere therewith‑Leave to appeal refused.
Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th May, 1984.
‑The question before the Settlement authorities ultimately was whether the Chaubara in dispute could be treated as an independent unit and, therefore, be transferred separately.
After protracted proceedings it was held in the last order passed in the Settlement Document, namely, the order, dated 28‑2‑1976 by the Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner that the chaubara in question was an indepen dent unit and was accordingly, ordered to be transferred to its occupant viz, the respondent No. 2 herein. This order was challenged by the petitioner by fling a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, but a learned Single Judge of the said Court, who heard the said petition, found no reason to interfere with the findings of the. Settlement Commissioner and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
We have heard Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate in support of this petition at some length.
The question involved is essentially one of fact, namely, whether the chaubara in dispute was or was not an independent unit on which the highest authority in the settlement organisation has given a finding that it was an independent and separate unit. The High Court, therefore, rightly refused to interfere with the said finding and we fully agree with the High Court in this regard. Accordingly, its order requires no interference by this Court.
S. Q. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer