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 Appeals Nos. 1034 and 1035 of
1980, decided on 21st August, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgments and orders, dated 15‑4‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petitions Nos. 1420/11 and 966/11 of 1977, respectively).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) .Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of, property‑‑Property declared partly residential and partly agricultural‑‑Demarcation impugned in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Whether property is agricultural or otherwise being question of fact, not open to interference‑‑Transfer order having been validly concluded on findings of fact, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.‑‑[Finding of fact].
Dr. Yar Muhammad's case P L D 1964 Lah. 469 ref.
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Question whether property is agricultural or otherwise being of fact, High Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction‑‑Transfer order having been validly concluded on findings of fact, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Dr. Yar Muhammad's case P L D 1964 Lah. 469 ref.
Khalique Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1034 of 1980) (absent).
Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No. 1034 of 1980).
Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 1035 of 1980).
Khalique Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 to 10 (in C.P. 1035 of 1980).
Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984.
These two petitions: Nos.1034 and .1035 of 1980, are directed against judgment, dated 15‑4‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two Constitutional Petitions arising out of a settlement case filed by the two rival contesting parties, were dismissed.
As a result of final order passed by the Settlement Authority 4 Kanals area of the disputed property was treated as agricultural land and transferred accordingly. While 5 Kanals 19 Marlas was treated otherwise and was transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VI. Thus both the contesting parties obtained evacuee property: one getting 4 Kanals and the other 5 Kanals, 19 Marlas. Each one of them felt dissatisfied and sought the other party's portion also through Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Both the petitions were dismissed with the following observations:
"It is to be noted that the case in question had been sent back with a specific direction. The Settlement Commissioner visited the spot, heard the parties, received their written arguments and has passed a very elaborate order. He has discussed all the contentions raised and has come to the conclusion that the property in question is partly residential and partly agricultural. The objection of the learned counsel that such a decision is not valid cannot be accepted in view of the‑rule laid down by the High Court in the case of Dr. Yar Muhammad P L D 1964 Lah. 469 and later upheld by the Supreme Court. Even otherwise the question whether a property is agricultural or otherwise is a question of fact in the light of the above judgment and no interference can be made by this Court in this jurisdiction."
With the foregoing findings the petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Both the parties have now sought leave to appeal.
Learned counsel after some arguments in support of challenge to the transfer of property to the other party ultimately agreed that the real dispute relates to the identity of the area/property transferred to each contesting party‑‑though it has all alone been admitted that one party has been transferred 4 Kanals and the other party 5 Kanals and 19 Marlas. It is also admitted that the total area of the property is 9 Kanals and 19 Marlas.
In these circumstances we are of the view that the dispute if in reality there is any, remains only regarding demarcation. If so advised they may approach the competent forum for demarcation. Otherwise in so far as the question of the validity of the orders of transfer is concerned the same stands concluded by findings of fact which do not merit any interference by this Court.
With these observations these two petitions are dismissed.
M.I. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer