Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1233-R of 1975, decided on 14th November 1985.

----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Transfer of property- Petitioner claiming his entitlement over shop in dispute but said shop forming part of property having all along been in possession of respondents whereas portion transferred to petitioner only residential and he was shown to possess no shop--Record of Municipal Committee as well as Survey Register showed shop to be never in possession of petitioner--Findings of fact given by Rehabilitation Department in favour of respondents--Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction.

---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitu tional jurisdiction--Finding of fact--Finding of fact given by Rehabilitation Department in their exclusive jurisdiction, held, could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction.

Ch. Abdul Aziz for Petitioner.

Sh. Anwar-ul-Haq for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 6th November, 1985.

This Writ Petition arises from an order dated 22-9-1975 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-VI, VII, Faridkot House, Lahore, (Annexure J) which in turn was passed in pursuance of an order of remand dated 31-1-1974 of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, regarding property No. 65, Ward-.No. 1, Pattoki, District, Lahore.

2. The shop in question was held to be a part of property No. 65/2 having all along been in possession either of the present respondents, Aitbari himself or his deceased father Rahim Bakhsh since 1947. It was further found that a N.C.H. Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII had been filed within the prescribed time by the respondents' father and that the shop being available had to be adjusted against it. Conversely, it was held that the writ-petitioner Wali Muhammad had no claim to the shop as the premises transferred to him formed part of property No. 65 having had no linkage with it and, therefore, he had no right whatsoever to lay hand thereon.

3. The main contention in the writ petition advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that he had been given three rooms vide the order dated 23-12-1959 (Annexure A) confirmed later by the Addl. Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 4-2-1960 (Annexure B) and that due to finality it had attained over the period, it could not have been disturbed by applying Scheme No. VIII, enforced much later so as to slice away one room out of the three given to him.

4. Ostensibly, the petitioner's contention seems to be well placed as the order dated 4-2-1960 had for all purposes become final but its careful perusal would show that it related only to property No. 65 which was a residential double-storeyed building. Even the portion transferred to the petitioner out of it was residential and he was shown to possess no shop. The impugned order, on the other hand, does not relate to property No. 65 but instead of 65/2 consisting of two shops, out of which one had already been disposed of and the present one was still available for disposal. The record of the Municipal Committee Pattoki as also the Survey Register showed this shop to be never in possession of the writ-petitioner and that instead it was occupied either by, the respondent Aitbari or his father during his life time. It was further held that this shop was not a part of property No.65 as there was no connection between the two and hence the petitioner could not extend the dimensions of his property viz. 65 so as to include the impugned shop in his residential property. There is considerable force in the plea that if any of the three rooms forming part of property No.65 was taken away from the petitioner by any one, his claim might lie against him and not the respondent whose entitlement being based upon their continuous possession over a different. unit had its own legal effect. On this view of the matter, the orders as also the P.T.O. relied upon by the petitioner would not help him much. They are final no doubt but at their own place and could not be allowed to be extended to some other property. The findings of fact given by the Rehabilitation Department in their exclusive jurisdiction cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction.

5. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.

M.Y. H./W-5/L Petition 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.