Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 763 of 1979, decided on 7th August, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th June, 1979 in W. P. No. 930/R/1971).
‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Transfer of evacuee property‑Approach of Settle ment Authorities to transfer plot in dispute on basis of possession not suffering from any legal infirmity and unexceptionable‑Findings on questions of fact regarding allotment and possession‑Held, cannot be interfered with.
S. M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2. Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Settlement Depart ment.
Date of hearing : 7th August, 1983.
‑This.,, petition for leave to appeal arises out of an urban settlement case regarding a plot. The petitioner was found in possession of about 1 Kanal and 7 Marlas and the respondent No. 2 about 1 Kanal and 6 Marlas parts thereof. These parts have been transferred to them on basis of their respective possession. The remaining part, i.e. about 4 Kanals has been ordered to be auctioned. The petitioner's effort to obtain this part also having failed in the High Court, he has now sought leave to appeal to this Court.
Learned counsel has in the outset given up the case against respondent No. 2. His contention regarding the remaining part is that the entire plot having been "allotted" to the petitioner and he being admittedly in posses sion of a substantial part of it the settlement authorities had no option but to transfer the entire plot (subject of course to the concession made for respondent No. 2 now) regardless of the question of possession.
It is not necessary to examine the legal point noted above as according to the findings which were armed by the High Court, the petitioner was not allotted the entire plot. The approach of the settlement authorities to transfer the plot on the basis of possession and assumption that the allot ment was also of the part in possession of the petitioner; does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is unexceptionable. Nor there is any other justification for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact on questions of fact regarding allotment and possession. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer