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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 939 of 1980, decided on Ist September. 1985.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th May, 1980 in Writ Petition No. 1169‑R of 1975).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Transfer of evacuee plot‑‑Rival claimants alleging fraud against each other‑‑Respondent's case pending with Settlement authorities when relevant law was repealed‑‑Petitioner's objection that Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to proceed with matter, not accepted‑‑Refusal of High Court to grant relief to petitioner in its discretionary jurisdiction. notwithstanding repeal of law, held, unexceptionable‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Sher Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Jehangir A. Joja, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 1st September. 1985.
This petition arises out of an urban settlement r:j N The property involved is a plot. The petitioner, on the one hand and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the other, independently of each other claim transfer of the plot through auction said to have taken place at different stages. Petitioner claims to have obtained P T.O. and P. T. D. also. The respondents' case is that they having completed the necessary formalities the Settlement Authorities were yet to issue the transfer documents and the matter thus would be deemed to be pending before them when the relevant law was repealed. They accordingly in this context also made application to the officer concerned to do the needful. The petitioner objected to the proceedings on several grounds including that after the repeal the respondents' case was neither pending nor genuine, therefore, the D.S.C. (Plots) had no jurisdiction to proceed with the application. Not having succeeded before the D.S.C. to stop the inquiry the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. It is clear from the position taken by both the sides that while the petitioner treats all the documents in support of the respondents' plea of transfer as forged and based on fraud, the same is being alleged from the respondent side against the petitioner. if the petitioner's case is based on fraud and forgery then the respondents' plea that there was a pending case for completion of the formalities of transfer might require serious consideration. On the other hand, if contrary to the position taken by the Settlement Department in their comments submitted before the High Court the petitioner's case emerges before the Settlement Authorities to be genuine, the respondents obviously would not succeed before the D.S.C.
3. In the afore‑explained peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the refusal of the High Court to grant relief to the petitioner in its discretionary jurisdiction notwithstanding repeal of the law, is unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition, therefore, is 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