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.
Civil Petition No. 273 of 1981, decided on 13th October, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6‑12‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 744‑R of 1977) .
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Interests of justice‑‑Transfer of property cancelled by order passed in Constitutional petition and case remanded to competent authority for disposing of alleged forms submitted for transfer of property after hearing all interested parties‑‑Remand order impugned on ground that respondents' earlier petition challenging transfer of disputed land to petitioners had been dismissed‑‑Earlier writ petition having been dismissed for non‑joinder of necessary parties, case could not be deemed to have been heard and finally determined‑‑Determination of question whether petitioners could get entire open land along with bungalow, required further scrutiny and in presence of all parties will conduce to interests of justice‑‑Order of High Court, held, was not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 9.
Date of hearing: 13th October, 1981.
This petition is directed against the order, dated 6‑12‑1960 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 744‑R of 1977.
By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was partly accepted. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, has transferred an area of 12 Kanals 5 Marlas 259 sq.ft. to the contesting respondents on the ground that their forms had not been considered under Settlement Scheme Nos. VI and VIII. The order of transfer was cancelled by the learned Judge in the High Court. However, the case was remitted to the competent authority for disposing of the alleged form, after hearing all the interested parties.
Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order so far as it directed the remand of the case for ascertaining the entitlement of the respondents 2 to 5 was not justified, as the said respondent's earlier petition challenging the transfer of this land in favour of the petitioners had been dismissed on 5‑12‑1973 and the petition for special leave to appeal (Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 191 of 1974) was also dismissed by this Court on 9‑10‑1974.
We observe that the earlier writ petition was dismissed for non -joinder of a necessary party and that on the merits and, therefore, the case could not be deemed to have been heard and finally determined. The property in question, we observe, is a large one, a bungalow with open land measuring about 31 Kanals and the question whether the petitioners can get the entire open land along with the bungalow does indeed require further scrutiny. We feel, therefore, that the determination of this point in the presence of all the parties will Conduce to the interests of justice and are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. We may, however, observe that the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the points available to them under the law in their defence during the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on remand.
This petition, subject to the above observation, stands dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer