1972 PLP 465 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMEED‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1972 PLP 465 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 465 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 465 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 465 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMEED‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd November 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 28th June 1972, in L. P. A. No. 57 of 1971). Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 115‑Estoppel‑Allottee of evacuee factory, on its being auctioned in favour of another, offering to pay same price as offered by auction‑purchaser‑Offer accepted, possession restored, and allottee making part payments‑Challenge thrown, six years later, that being allottee of factory, Department could, under relevant rules, charge from him only market value of property and his contract to pay higher amount, being against statute, was unenforceable‑Petitioner, held, estopped from challeng ing price of property and bound to pay contracted price‑Writ petition additionally suffering from laches, no ground made out for in terference by Supreme Court‑.Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched. I, para.
14. E. A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf P L D 1964 S C 536 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The dispute between the parties is in respect of National Cotton Factory, Khanpur, which was transferred to the petitioner at a price of Rs. 6,52,.;
00. This property was auctioned in favour of another person. The peti tioner, in order to oust that person, offered to pay the same price which that purchaser had offered. His offer was accepted and he was given possession of the Factory. The petitioner did not raise any objection for a period of six years and made part payments. He enjoyed the fruit of the concern as well. After a period of six years, he woke up and started challeng ing the price which he had himself agreed to pay. His writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 57 of 1971 and a Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated the 28th June 1972, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment. The short question for consideration in this petition is whe ther the petitioner can get out of the contract made by him with the Settlement Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the case of E. A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf (PLD1964SC536) and has contended that a party cannot contract out of the statute. It would appear that the petitioner's case is that he was an allottee of the Factory in dispute and the Department under the relevant rules could charge from him the market value of the property in dispute. In these circumstances, the petitioner's contention is that the Department should charge from him only the market value of the property in dispute. The case cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable. In the present case, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the price of the property in dispute. He offered Rs. 6,52,000 and bound to pay that amount. Besides, his writ petition suffer from laches. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.