Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

SARDAR MUHAMMAD versus BARKAT ALI


Article 185 (3) of the Homeless Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), a case challenging the transfer of property under Section 25 Civil Court Bar to the Civil Court Bar Solicit Scheme No. VII, Because it had no jurisdiction because the settlement authorities had it. Special jurisdiction in such matters

1986 S C M R 770

Present: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ

SARDAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner

versus

BARKAT ALI‑‑Respondent

Civil Petition No. 714 of 1977, decided on 19th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 7‑11‑1977 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 808 of 1977).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 25‑‑Jurisdiction of civil Court‑‑Bar to‑‑Civil suit challenging transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII‑‑Civil Court, held, had no jurisdiction as Settlement Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction in such cases.

Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (absent), Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th November, 1985.

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑

‑The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the order of transfer of the property in question by the order, dated 3‑10‑1968 passed by Tehsildar Sheikhupura, exercising powers of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) under Settlement Scheme No. VII.

2. The Civil Court decreed the suit but, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and accepted the appeal. Then High Court agreed with the view of the learned Additional District Judge.

3. The view of the learned Additional District Judge and upheld by the High Court that the Settlement Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction in a case of this kind is plainly correct.

4. No ground for interference.

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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates email from Chak 4 b c lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.