1972 PLP 124 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 124 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 124 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 124 (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 124 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Naimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 21st February 1972.
- The learned Advocate for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed an application under Scheme No. 8. This remedy, if available to the petitioners, will be considered on the merits of the petitioners' application.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind 8t Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 14th September 1971, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 1965). Displaced Persons (Compensation .and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2(4) read with Sched., Para. 1‑Person in possession of an outhouse‑Not entitled to claim transfer of house. Mst. Fazlun Nisa Begum v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1972 S C M R 126 and Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1966 S C 719 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioners bad been in occupa tion of certain outhouses of the house in question and on the basis of such possession and of their C. H. Forms were allotted the said house. The allotment was, however, subsequently cancelled on the ground that on the basis of their possession of some outhouses of the house they were not entitled to claim transfer of the house. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Judges of the High Court failed to read the definition of `House' in section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, together with paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Act, and this failure has affected their decision. It is argued that reading the said two provisions together the petitioners are entitled to claim transfer of the house on the basis of their possession of the outhouses for there was no difference between the possession of a portion of the main house and the possession of an outhouse of the house. The High Court rejected this contention on the basis of two judgments of this Court, namely, Mst. Fazlun Nisa Begum v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, judgment dated 24‑3‑1966 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑34 of 1966. This judgment of the Supreme Court was approved in the case o Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner (PLD1966SC719). The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioners' contention. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed an application under Scheme No.
8. This remedy, if available to the petitioners, will be considered on the merits of the petitioners' application. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.