Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1091 of 1980, decided on 16th August, 1984.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑5‑1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 173‑R of 1974).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Composite property transferred to petitioner and one W by compromise‑ Subsequently portion of W auctioned‑‑In ensuing litigation petitioner's claim to portion of W rejected on ground that he was bound by terms of compromise and could not seek any portion transferred to W‑‑Order upheld by Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner having no locus standi to claim any portion transferred in terms of compromise to W, his plea for grant of leave to appeal had no merits‑‑Petition dismissed.

A Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th August, 1984.

A composite property bearing No. B/50, Ghallah Mandi, Vehari, comprising a shop and Chaubara over it, was transferred in favour of Mst. Waheedan (respondent No.4), by association, on 28‑11‑1959. Petitioner Raza Muhammad, who was in possession of a portion of the shop, agitated the matter, in the course of which the dispute was resolved on 25‑11‑1967 by a compromise reached between the parties whereby the portion of the shop in possession of Raza Muhammad alongwith the Chaubara over it on the southern side was transferred to him and the remaining portion of the shop alongwith the Chaubara over it was transferred to Mst. Waheedan. Admittedly there is no dispute now with regard to the property so transferred to the petitioner. Unfortunately, a dispute arose in regard to the property transferred to Mst. Waheedan as the same was put to auction and purchased by one Muhammad Tufail but she emerged successful. During the litigation, however, the petitioner also jumped in, laying claim to the portion transferred to Mst. Waheedan but having failed before the Settlement authorities, filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order, dated 6‑5‑1980 for the reason that he was bound by the terms of the compromise and could not seek any portion transferred to Mst. Waheedan.

2. Obviously the petitioner is bound by the order, dated 25‑11‑1967 passed in terms of the compromise against which he did not agitate. He had, therefore, no locus standi to claim any portion transferred in terms of the compromise in favour of Mst. Waheedan. His plea for grant of leave to appeal has no merit. The petition is dismissed.

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.