Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1489 of 1980, decided on 20th August, 1984.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑9‑1980 in I . C . A . No. 563 of 1979).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Property in possession of claimants and non‑claimant‑‑Both parties seeking transfer‑‑Deputy Settlement Commissioner treating property indivisible, transferred same to claimants‑‑High Court refused to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with exercise of discretion by Deputy Settlement Commissioner‑‑Order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court

Muhammad Arif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Fjaz .Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Qamar‑ud‑Din Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3

Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984.

.‑‑ Our order passed in C.P.No. 1488 of 1980 may be read with this order as both the matters relate to the disposal of the same property.

This petition is directed against judgment, dated 27‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby an Intra‑Court Appeal filed by the petitioners arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.

The property was transferred by D.S.C. in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are also the respondents in Civil Petition No.1488 of 1980. It was held to be in their possession through their licensee Mohammad Yasin who according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is also the respondents' uncle. Treating the property as indivisible and finding that the respondents were claimants /applicants for transfer, it was duly transferred to them by the D.S.C. The petitioners challenged this transfer in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Two contentions were raised: one, that the D.S.C. treated the property as indivisible without conscious application of mind to this question; and secondly, that the findings of fact with regard to respondents' possession were not maintainable. A learned Single Judge repelled both the arguments, with cogent reasons. Same pleas were raised before the C.A. Bench but were repelled

We agree with the approach of the learned Judges of the High Court or, the question of divisibility. It was within discretionary jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to treat the house as indivisible. The refusal of the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with the exercise of discretion by the concerned D.S.C. in this behalf is unexceptionable. Regarding the findings in favour of the respondents on question of possession we have already rejected the similar plea in Civil Petition No.1488 of 1980. This petition accordingly has no force and 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.