Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 321/1976, decided on 26‑3‑1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑11‑1975 W.P. 1007/70).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10 and Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑‑Dispute over allotment of residential hose and godown‑‑Petitioner claiming on basis of allotment to his father‑‑Judgment of High Court showing that petitioner's father was convicted and sentenced on charge of grabbing a number of properties‑‑Contentions raised found to be devoid of force ‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

M. Talib Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th March, 1983.

Petitioner alongwith two other applied for the allotment of residential portion of building on Khasra No. 86 to 90 and a godown on Khasra No. 90 situated in Mandi Marh Baluchan, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sheikhupura vide order dated 30‑11‑1962, allotted the residential portion and the godown in question to the petitioner. The properties were permanently settled upon the petitioner vide order dated 7‑5‑1968 of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and thus this property went out of the pool. Later on respondent No. 4 Sher Muhammad filed an appeal against the order dated 7‑5‑1968 before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sheikhupura who vide order dated 9‑5‑1969 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 7‑5‑1968. Abdul Rahman father of Abdul Qayum respondent No. 5 filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands) who by his order dated 6‑3‑1968 allotted the godown to him which was earlier allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order as well which was dismissed on 9-5-1969. Having failed in his appeal the petitioner filed revision petition under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lahore, Division, Lahore who vide order dated 24‑5‑1969 returned the revision petitions on the ground that he was not competent to hear the revision petitions. The petitioner then filed a constitutional Writ Petition No. 580/11 of 1969 in Lahore High Court, Lahore. It was observed by the High Court that the revision petition was maintainable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner allegedly withdrew the petition and filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore which was heard by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) who vide order dated 26‑9‑1970 observed that the revision petitions were incompetent. The petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 1007/R of 1970 which came for hearing before the Lahore High Court and was dismissed with costs on 5‑11‑1975.

2. Learned counsel argued that the petition was dismissed on extraneous circumstances as much as the learned' Judge has observed that because the father of petitioner was evicted from the premises in question and that order was unsuccessfully assailed upto the High Court in Writ Petition No. 352/11/59, therefore the petitioner had no better right than his father had and was not entitled to any relief. The relevant observation is reproduced below:

"In Writ Petition No. 352/11/59 the father of the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the ejectment proceedings. In those proceedings the property in dispute was also included. The petitioner has not given any reference of the above‑mentioned writ petition in this petition. Although that writ petition was filed by the father of the petitioner, nevertheless its result has a direct bearing on the claim of the petitioner."

It was further contended that the learned Judge had not taken into account the fact that the petitioner in his own right, got the allotment of the property in question from the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sheikhupura vide order dated 30‑11‑1962 which order was never assailed by any person and the allotment of the petitioner is not even denied by the learned Judge, and unless that original order is set aside, the property in question cannot be allotted to any one.

3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that these are devoid of any force. The petitioner has not placed copy of judgment in Writ Petition No. 352/11/59 on record. When asked as to why the copy of judgment in Writ Petition No. 352/11/59 has not beets placed on record, he had no reply. It appears from the p judgment of the learned High Court Judge that in Writ Petition No. 352/11/59 the matter had been decided against the father of the petitioner who was charged for grabbing a number of properties, was, therefore, tried under Martial Law, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. We do not find force in this Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

S. Q. 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.