1988 PLP 1744 (CLC)
Kh. MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (with Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner,
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1744 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | S. A. Mahmood, J |
| Parties | Kh. MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (with Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1744 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1744 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: S. A. Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1744 (CLC) (Kh. MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (with Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Zafir and Fazli Ghani for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.l.
- Karam Elahi Chauhan for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Prior to partition two shops were in occupation of two different non‑Muslims on rent‑‑Such shops, held, could not De treated as one evacuee property and petitioner applying for transfer of such shops would not be entitled for transfer of both shops unless same were treated as one property‑‑Settlement Authorities, however, could decide what action, if any, was necessary in that respect. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Calling of record when to be declined‑‑Application for calling for some record filed by respondent at time of hearing constitutional petition was disallowed by High Court on ground that such application should have been made much earlier.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Calling of record when to be declined‑‑Application for calling for some record filed by respondent at time of hearing constitutional petition was disallowed by High Court on ground that such application should have been made much earlier. Bashir Zafir and Fazli Ghani for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.l. Karam Elahi Chauhan for Respondent No.2. In this Writ Petition it is urged that the order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq in second revision dated the 20th of April, 1962 may be set aside on the ground that he had no power to entertain second revision. In this case the record of the case was not called before the 13th of January, 1962. The petitioner has in support of the contention that the record was not called before the relevant date produced a certified copy of the order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq dated the 7th of April, 1962 for issuing notice to these parties for the 20th of April, 1962 and for calling of records. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside as being without jurisdiction.
2. The order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, however, is that there were two shops even before partition, one in occupation of Amar Nath and the other of Jai Lal, who were paying Rs.60 and Rs.20 p. m. The petitioner does not, therefore, appear to be entitled to two shops. He could only get both the shops if they are treated as one. It is, however, for the Settlement Authorities to decide what action, if any, is necessary in this connection.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has put in an application today that some records may be called for. This application should have been made much earlier and I am not inclined to grant it. The application is dismissed.
4. If the respondent finds that there was an earlier order passed before the 13th of January, 1962 to summon the record in second revision he may apply for a review of this order. H . B . T . / M‑491 / L Order accordingly.