Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 565 and 593 of 1980, decided on 10th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11‑2‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos. 927‑R/71 and 214‑R/73),

‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Question whether commercial part of composite building consisted only of one shop or two shops was matter for Settlement Authorities and not a matter for High Court or Supreme Court‑‑No ground for interference shown petitions dismissed.

A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 565 and 593 of 1980).

Hakim Quraishi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 565 and 593 of 1980).

Date of hearing: 10th November, 1985.

‑This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 565 of 1980 and Civil Petition No. 593 of 1980, as both the petitions arise out of one and the same judgment passed by the High Court.

In these cases the main question is whether the disputed commer cial part of a composite building consisted of two shops or was only one shop which the petitioner, as a claimant, was entitled to transfer in its entirety.

In the final order passed by the Settlement Authorities, namely, the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 28‑9‑1971 it was found that the property in dispute was divisible and the petitioner was allowed to retain the portion in his possession, namely the portion marked 'C', while the portion 'D' was allowed to be transferred to one Muhammad Sabir. This portion, it may be mentioned, has since been transferred between the heirs of Muhammad Sabir and one Abdul Majeed upon a compromise entered into by them for sharing it half and half. The question whether the commercial part consisted only of one shop or two shops was matter for the Settlement Authorities and not a matter for the High Court or this Court.

No ground for interference exists. Both these petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

M. I. Petitions 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.