1990 PLP 977 (SCMR)
RAHMAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 977 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | RAHMAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. VI‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 977 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. VI‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 977 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 977 (SCMR) (RAHMAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 1‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. 344‑R/77). ‑‑‑Para.6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Transfer of. plot in dispute in favour of petitioners through auction was challenged by respondent on ground that plot had already been transferred to him under Settlement Scheme No. VI and he had paid entire price thereof‑‑‑Controversy between parties was revolving round the question whether plot already transferred to respondent was same and had subsequently been auctioned off in favour of petitioners‑‑‑Respondent produced on record documentary evidence which left no room for doubt that plot transferred to him was same which subsequently was auctioned to petitioners‑‑‑Petitioners, on the other hand, having failed to place on record any document rebutting claim of respondent, case was not found fit for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. M. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th September, 1989. SAAD MOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition for special leave t,, appeal relates to a plot measuring about 9‑1/2 marlas, bearing Khasra No.5757/5758, in Barkatpura near Shalamar Town, Lahore. It was evacuee property and was put to auction on 27‑4‑1974. The petitioners offered the highest bid and it was transferred to them.
2. Soon after the transfer respondent No.3 moved an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner seeking cancellation of the transfer made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the plot had already been transferred to him on 18‑12‑1963 under Scheme No. VI and‑ that he had paid the price thereof partly through cash and partly through compensation book. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that after the repeal of the Settlement laws, he was left with no authority to interfere with the matter. Respondent No.3 then invoked the constitution jurisdiction of the High Court to seek relief in the matter, The High Court accepted his petition and declared the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioners to be of no legal effect. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The controversy between the parties revolved round the question whether the plot transferred to respondent No.3 was the same Which had been auctioned off in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.3 has placed on record a photostat copy of the Assessment of Building Site prepared by the Settlement Inspector on as for back as 2-7-1964 which leaves no room for doubt that the plot transferred to him bore Khasra No. 5757/5758. On the other hand, the petitioners did not place any document refuting the claim of respondent No.3. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./R‑133/5 Leave to appeal refused.