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

RUQAYYA BEGUM versus ALTAF QUTAB


Article 8 (185 ()) of the Homelessness (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XX88 of XXVIII), Section 10 Evacuation of houses has been banned because of the detection of the courts below Some of the documents are not considered to follow the decision in which this argument is disclosed. Not valid The decision not to open for interference petition was rejected

1985 S C M R 1223(1)

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ

Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner

versus

ALTAF QUTAB and others‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 662 of 1978, decided on 23rd February, 1985.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑10‑1978 passed in R.S.A. No. 306 of 1973).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee houses‑‑Demarcation of boundary‑‑Finding of Courts below assailed on ground that certain documents placed on record were not considered‑‑Perusal of judgment showing that contention was not correct‑‑Decision not open to inter ference‑‑Petition dismissed.

M. Ahmad Hassan Khan. Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1985.

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑

Mst. Ruqayya Begum has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 17‑10 1978, dismissing her R.S.A. (No. 306 of 1973).

2, The matter relates to demarcation of boundary of the bungalows transferred by the Settlement authorities to the petitioner and the respondent. The net result of the litigation is that it has been found by the courts below that the garrage and the servant quarter, which are subject‑matter of the dispute, are situated in the bungalow transferred to the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that this finding is not correct, and that the learned Courts below have not considered certain documents (Exhs. P.5 to P.7) placed on the record:

After going through the judgments of the Courts below, however, is not correct. We do not, therefore, thin+ we feel that the contention that this case warrants interference by this Court.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.

M.I. 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
online advocate from Larkana 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.