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 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 193 and 205 of 1976, decided on 7th April, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 18‑12‑1975 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W. P. No. 903/R of 1970 and W. P. No. 904/R of 1970).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Settlement Commissioner while decid ing case failing to observe conditions laid down in remand order in letters patent appeal by High Court‑Such order impugned before High Court by respondent in second round of litigation, held, liable to be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction‑Leave to appeal refused.
Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Muhammad Hanif Khan Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Husain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date .of hearing: 17th April, 1982.
‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 18‑12‑1975 of the Lahore High Court, whereby two constitutional petitions arising out of a settlement case (under the laws relating to Displaced Persons and Evacuee Property) filed from the side of the respondents, were allowed, on the main ground that the Settlement Commissioner when deciding the case on 20‑5‑1970, had failed to observe the conditions laid down by the High Court in the order of remand passed by a Letters Patent Bench in L. P. A. No. 950 of 1966.
After hearing the learned counsel in support of these two petitions, we agree with the High Court that the conditions laid down by the learned Letters Patent Bench of the High Court in its order of remain were not complied with by the Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the order dated 22‑5‑1970 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, which was impugned before the High Court from the respondents' side in the second round of litigation, was liable to be set aside in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. That being so, no justification has bee made out for interference by this Court. These petitions accordingly are dismissed.
M, Z, M. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer