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

GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH versus SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH


Article 4 (185 ()) to consider this question for the evacuation of vacancies in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XX88 of XXVIII), Schedule and Settlement Scheme No. VII, para 3. Has anyone been allowed to have actual physical possession of the property? The right to exchange on your allotment in accordance with the terms of paragraph 3 of the scheme
1984 S C M R 1419

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ

Syed GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner

versus

Syed SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH and others‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 240 of 1980, decided on 11th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and Order, dated 21‑1‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.526‑R of 1970).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. and Settlement Scheme No.VII, para. 3‑ Transfer of Evacuee Property‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Granted to consider question whether a person in actual physical occupation of property has superior entitlement to transfer over its allottee in view of terms of para. 3 of Scheme.

Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by Sh.Abdul Karimq,..w Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.

Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Settlement Department.

Date of hearing: 11th October, 1983.

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑

The petitioner is in actual physical occupation of a shop situated in Mauza Gheela Khurd, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi while respondent No.l is its allottee. Both applied for its transfer under the provisions of Settlement Scheme No.VII (framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. 1958.

Whereas the Settlement Department found that the petitioner was entitled to its transfer on account of his undisputed physical occupation of the shop, the High Court in writ jurisdiction set aside the order holding that the possession of the petitioner could only be deemed as permissive, and he could not be preferred over the allottee.

The question whether a person in actual physical occupation has a superior entitlement to transfer over its allottee in view of terms of para. 3 of Settlement Scheme No.VII which provides that:

"All rural properties situated in minor villages other than Pacca houses and shops of the value of Rs.10,000 and above, will be transferred to the occupants free of charge but other provisions for the transfer of properties in the preceding sub‑paragraphs regarding disposal of rural properties in major village, shall mutates- mutandis apply to the disposal of unoccupied rural properties in minor villages." (underlining is ours) requires further consideration.

Leave is granted.

Security Rs.2, 500.

Interim order dated 15‑5‑1980 to continue meanwhile.

S. Q. Leave granted.

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
us immigration advocates from Ziarat 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.