Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 283 of 1980, decided on 8th August, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 10‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 594/11 of 1974).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss.2(4), 10 and Sched.‑‑Dispute over transfer of Serai by division‑‑Contentions raised already repelled by High Court‑‑Petition found to be without any merit‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Z . Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Respondent No.l.

Shaukat Ali Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 8th August, 1983.

The dispute relates to transfer of a portion of a large Sarai situate in Block No. 7, Sargodha. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 31‑10‑1960 transferred rooms/ verandahs 55, 56, 58 and 59 on the ground floor to the petitioner and rooms/verandahs 140, 141, 143 and 144 on the first floor to Faqir Muhammad respondent No.2. Not satisfied, the petitioner appealed and succeeded in getting a vertical division of the property, whereby he was transferred the portion of Faqir Muhammad also, whose transfer was cancelled. This was vide order dated 12‑12‑1960. The respondent's revision having failed. he brought Writ Petition N0. 997/11 of 1966, in the result of which the matter was remanded on 22‑11‑1973 for a fresh decision. The learned Settlement Commissioner, on remand, held that "they were originally considered for the transfer of the two rooms each according to their possession but the D.S.C. liberally gave them two more adjoining rooms each as they were not disputed by anybody". He held that the rooms in the occupation of the respondent had been improperly transferred to the petitioner who had no direct access to the first‑floor. He, therefore, by his order dated 6‑3‑1974, set aside the vertical division and restored the original transfer made on 31‑10‑1960. The petitioner agitated the matter before the High Court by a writ petition but having failed now seeks leave to appeal.

2. It is contended, as has been done before the High Court, that the respondent had not filed any form. The contention was repelled by the High Court on the basis of his own admission in ground No. 4 a: the memorandum of appeal to the effect that the respondent had filed an N.C.H. Form. The other contention that P.T.D. already having issued in his favour the Settlement authorities could not re‑open the matter has no force in the circumstance of the case. We find no merit. in this petition and accordingly refuse leave to appeal.

S. Q.

Leave refused

Find a Lawyer Near You

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