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.
In re: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.279 of 1980, decided on 10th October, 1984.
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Petitioner having failed up to Supreme Court, sought transfer on ground that entire portion in his possession was not auctioned and left out portion be transferred to him‑‑Question about transfer, auction and eligibility of petitioner having already been decided, his Constitutional petition was rejected‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Muhammad Siddiq v. Settlement Commissioner etc. 1974 S C M R 87 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, Advocate‑on‑Record and Ch. Aziz Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 10th October, 1984.
.‑‑Petitioner's claim to the transfer of the property in dispute came up before this Court in the first round of litigation in the case reported as Muhammad Siddiq v. Settlement Commissioner etc. S C M R 87. According to the impugned judgment of the High Court, petitioner did not lose heart and filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the entire portion in his possession had not been auctioned, and that the left out portion be transferred in his favour under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. This claim was examined and rejected by the Settlement Authorities and also by Lahore High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
We have gone through the record of the case in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the High Court has very rightly taken the view that the earlier judgment of this Court "has quite clearly decided (questions) about the transfer, auction and eligibility of Muhammad Siddiq (petitioner herein)".
No exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed in the High Court.
The petition is dismissed.
M. I.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer