Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1976, decided on 10th January, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court dated 29‑5‑1975 in L.P.A. No.1029 of 1966).

‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10 & Sched. ‑‑Transfer of evacuee house‑‑Parties present in Court agreeing that both of them should be transferred disputed house by dividing same vertically‑‑Arrangement between contesting parties found to be fair‑‑Appeal allowed in terms of agreed settlement.

Haji Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. i to 5.

Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 6 to 9.

Date of hearing: 10th January, 1984.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29‑5‑1975 of the Lahore High Court; whereby dismissal of appellants' writ petition in an urban settlement case was affirmed by a learned Letters Patent Bench. The dispute relates to the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act (No. XXVIII of 1958). The whole of the house stands transferred to the respondents side. The appellants' case is firstly that the entire house should have been transferred to their predecessor in‑interest who was claimant while the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents was a non‑claimant and that in any case the division of the house, reflected in the initial earmarking of the appellants' portion should have been maintained.

After some discussion the parties present and their learned) counsel have agreed that both the parties should be transferred the house by dividing the same vertically. They have accordingly indicated the agreed division on a site‑plan which has now been made a part of the record by marking the two so agreed divided parts, as A, B, C, D together with its upper portion and B, C, E, F together with its upper portion. The markings of the two portions; one, A, B, C, D in blue ink and red pencil and the second portion as B, C, E, F in blue ink and red pencil have been encircled in red pencil and initialled and detect (sic) by the Court Associate. The site‑plan has also been signed by the learned counsel for both the sides and those of the parties who are present. The arrangement between the contesting party is fair. Both the learned counsel have requested for the disposal of this appeal in accordance therewith. We order accordingly. This appeal thus is allowed in terms of the agreed settlement noted above. There shall be no order as to costs.

S. Q. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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