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.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10‑7‑1975 passed in Writ Petition No.47‑R of 1971).
Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1980, decided on 7th November, 198‑1.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Leave to appeal granted to petitioner to consider whether transfer of whole property, in the circumstances of case, and when respondent had applied for transfer of only a part of it, was justified.
‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Parties entering into compromise which was reduced to writing and signed by their respective counsel‑‑Supreme Court disposed of appeal in terms of compromise with direction to Settlement Department to implement same and to issue transfer order accordingly.
Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 (absent).
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1984.
leave of the Court the dispute relates to the transfer of Property No.405‑406, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. It had been allotted to Din Muhammad, father of the respondents, in October, 1947. But two rooms in the property were occupied by Hidayat Ali and three rooms by Muhammad Ramzan, appellants. On the commencement of the transfer operations, the respondents filed C . H . form and the appellants N. C . H . forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 21‑11‑1959, transferred the whole property to the respondents holding it to be indivisible. On appeal, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, on 16‑6‑1960, divided the property in three portions, transferring one portion each to the contesting parties but this was subject to certain directions given to the parties for demolition and construction for the purpose of the division. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was upheld in revision and second revision but the High Court in the respondents' Writ Petition No. 147‑R of 1964, found fault with the manner of the division and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The Settlement Commissioner, apparently without properly appreciating the terms of the remand, held the property to be indivisible and re‑transferred the whole of it in favour of the respondents. The appellants' Writ Petition No.47‑R of 1971 against the order of the Settlement Commissioner failed on 10‑7‑1975. Leave to appeal was granted to them to consider whether, the transfer of the whole property, in the circumstances of the case,' and when the respondents had applied for transfer of only a part of it, was justified.
2. It has been brought to our notice that both the appellants are dead, Hidayat Ali having died on 28‑1‑1977, i.e. during the pendency of this appeal, and Muhammad Ramzan on 26‑4‑1972, that is, even before the filing of the petition for leave to appeal in this Court. However, their heirs have entered into a compromise with the respondents, which has been reduced into writing and submitted to this Court. It is signed by their respective counsel. The compromise reads:
"The contesting respondents offer that an area equal to four and a half Marlas (with construction thereon) on south Eastern side of the house Property No.405‑406, Block No.3, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, shown in the map at page 169 of the Settlement file in occupation of Hidayat Ali and Abdul Aziz consisting of three rooms and courtyard adjacent thereto constituting a total area of four and a half Marlas may be transferred to the appellants, provided the appellants agree to the remainder of the house to be given to the contesting respondents.
The appellants agree to and accept the above offer.
It is further agreed that the portion in occupation of Muhammad Ramzan consisting of two rooms will be vacated and handed over to the contesting respondents; likewise Abdul Aziz, respondent No.2 will vacate the sitting room under his occupation in favour of the appellants.
The possession will be exchanged within a period of 60 (sixty days. The parties will pay the transfer price to the Settlement Department proportionately."
3. We accordingly dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise and direct the Settlement Department to implement the same and to issue transfer orders accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.1
M. Z. M. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer