Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 387 of 1980, decided on 23rd' November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4‑2‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 14‑R of 1976).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Transfer of‑‑Order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on remand, challenged‑‑Plea that directions of Settlement Commissioner were not given consideration and order transferring flat was not proper, repelled‑‑Criticism found not justified on perusal of impugned order‑‑Order being not open to inter ference, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.
‑‑The only question involved in this case is whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on remand, dated 15‑11‑1975 transferring the whole flat to respondent No. 2 was legal and proper
The contention of Mr. Jariullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the Settlement Commissioner while remanding the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had observed that the latter should also see if the respondent is simply entitled to a portion of the flat or the whole of it and if he found that he was entitled only to a portion of it, the rest may be left with the petitioners herein; however, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not give any consideration to this aspect of the matter. Hence, his order was not proper.
We have perused the impugned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and find that this criticism is not justified. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in his order, has clearly stated that the flat is "self‑contained and is stated not to be divisible". It is only after recording this finding that he proceeded to transfer the whole oft the flat in favour of respondent No. 2.
No ground for interference is made out.
This petition is dismissed
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer