Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.1433/ R of 1975, decided on 27th October,1985.
---S. 2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Order of Settlement Authority passed behind back of party, held, would not be sustainable--Question of entitlement of petitioner would not be open for re-examination as per order passed in previous writ petition of petitioner--Order of Settlement Authority relating to petitioner having been adjudicated upon earlier by High Court would be struck down as having been passed without lawful authority.
Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 27th October, 1985.
The petitioner was transferred a plot measuring 7 Marlas which was part of property No. 496 Mandi Muridke District Sheikhupura. The adjacent house was transferred by auction to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 to 12. They moved an application for reduction of the price of the house on the plea that they, were not aware that the plot was not a part of the house. The price was reduced by the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 14-4-1966 but he made an observation that the plot transferred to the petitioner was 4 Marlas in area and not 7 Marlas. The petitioner took a revision petition against this order. The Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 18-1-1967 found that the plot was of Marlas but he found that there was no justification for reducing the price of the house. The transferees of the house brought a writ petition to the High Court. Writ Petition No. 216-R of 1967 was disposed of, on 18-1-1974. The question of reduction of price of the house was remitted to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh adjudication but it was specifically directed that the entitlement of Muhammad Hanif, the present petitioner shall not be re-opened. One Shaukat Ali to whom the 3 Marlas of land had been sold by the transferees of the house and who had brought a suit for possession against the present petitioner and failed, applied for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings pending before the Settlement Commissioner on remand. A notice was given to the petitioner on whose objection the Settlement Commissioner, vide his order, dated 17-3-1975 held that the petitioner was not at all a necessary party, but the same officer on 10-4-1975, while disposing of the question of reduction in price of the house directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to check up the price of the portion transferred to the present petitioner. In pursuance of this order the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide order, dated 12-12-1975 directed the petitioner to pay the balance of the amount of the price to the extent to which the price of the house had been reduced. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.
2. The orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cannot be sustained for two reasons. Firstly, the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 10-4-1975 in pursuance of which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the fresh orders were passed behind the back of the petitioner who had earlier been adjudged not to be a necessary party. Secondly, the question of entitlement of Muhammad Hanif was not open for re-examination in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 216-R of 1967. The orders of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 10-4-1975 to the extent they related to the petitioner's case and similar orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 12-12-1975 were, therefore, passed without lawful authority. These orders are declared to be of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
A . A. Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer