Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1421 of 1983, decided on 11th February, 1984.

(From the order, dated 19‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 304‑R of 1983).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10 & Sched.‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Area in petitioner's actual possession already transferred to him by Settlement Commissioner‑‑Petitioner could not seek transfer of any other area not in his possession‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

M. Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1984.

,

‑‑ The dispute relating to the disposal of property No. S‑60‑R‑31, Mozang Road, Lahore, has been continuing for a long time. In the third round, the High Court by its order, dated 6‑7‑1981 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1198/11 of 1976 of Siraj Din etc. and 1224/11 of 1976 of Muhammad Akbar, remanded the matter with the direction that the Settlement Commissioner should have the measurements carried out afresh in the presence of the parties and, after personal inspection of the premises and in the presence of the parties, should finally decide the question of the transfer. The learned Settlement Commissioner complied with the directions and in the result found Allah Din petitioner, to be in possession of an area 22' x 28'=616 sq. ft., on which he had constructed a workshop and 182 sq. ft. on the other side of the shop, i.e., in all 798 sq. ft. or 3 Marlas 123 sq. ft., which area he transferred in his favour by order, dated 14‑6‑1983. Not satisfied, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 304/11 of 1983, which was, however, dismissed by the impugned order dated 19‑10‑1983 for the reason that the Settlement Commissioner had personally gone to the spot in the presence of the parties and looked into the measurements but that no objection had been taken to those measurements and that, in any case, the question involved only a finding of fact. Hence this petition.

2. The contention is that the petitioner has been given an area equal to that on which he had raised construction but he was entitled to an additional area equal to three times the built‑up area. From the Settlement Commissioner's order we find that the total area which was found to be in his actual possession was 3 Marlas 123 sq. ft. That being so, he could not seek transfer of any other area which was not in his possession. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which 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.