Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 313 of 1975 decided on 8th August, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑9‑1975, in Writ Petition No.1155‑R of 1970).

‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10/11‑‑Petitioners who were transferred a shop claiming that roof of shop, which formed part of a hotel already transferred to respondent, was also transferred to them with shop‑ Respondent had long ago raised construction over roof and converted into and made it a part of their hotel‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether such a transfer of roof of shop of petitioners to respondent as part of their converted hotel was in accordance with law applicable to cases of the type.

A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th August, 1981.

It is argued that no doubt the transfer of the Kashmir Hotel was made to the respondents earlier on 6‑8‑1970 followed by a P . T . O . dated 9‑11‑1960 and P . T . D . , dated 6‑3‑1962 but later on the petitioners were also on 14‑3‑1967 transferred through public auction the shop (to speak generally) which was in the auction list/or other relevant documents described as shop "vertically". This gave rise to the present litigation which ended with the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 16‑6‑1970 and of the High Court, dated 26‑9‑1975 (in W.P. 1155‑R/1970) wherein it was held that by obtaining transfer of a hotel, the respondents had also in that way already obtained transfer of the roof of the shop of the petitioners, which roof used to be in possession of the respondents where they had long ago raised certain construction which was a part of that hotel, and which roof in that form they had converted into and made a part of their hotel. That the aforesaid roof was so converted by the respondents has been held as a finding of fact by the Courts below but the learned counsel challenges that finding and also states that the roof of his shop could in no circumstance or under any law have been given to the respondents who could claim transfer of their own shops or portions and not of the roof of the petitioner's shop. It is further argued that with regard to a similar roof of another adjoining shop which the respondents claimed, their claim was not accepted but discrimination without any distinction was made in the case of the petitioners' roof. Leave is granted to consider whether such a transfer of roof of the shop of the petitioners to the respondents as a part of their converted hotel was in accordance with law applicable to cases of this type. Security Rs.2,000.

M. Y. H. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.