1989SCMR1014 (PLP)
UMAR DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1014 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1014 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1014 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1014 (PLP) (UMAR DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Wahid Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Rana M.A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. (absent).
- M.Rafiq Chohan, Advocate Supremc Court and Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos.l‑2.
- Date of hearing: 15th February 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated, 17‑6‑1979 of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore in Writ Petition No.241‑R of 1971). ‑‑‑S.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Propriety of division of property as directed by High Court to Notified Officer‑‑Mode of division as envisaged in High Court judgment being not correct, Supreme Court issued notice to respondents for consideration of point as to why petition for leave to appeal be not converted into appeal and open‑ended remand order be passed directing Notified Authority to examine afresh the question of divisibility of property and thereafter entitlement of claimants thereto‑‑Respondents consented to the passing of such order‑‑Petition was thus converted into appeal which was allowed in terms of agreement of parties.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑The question in this petition involve appropriate of the division, and the High Court in Writ Petition No.2,41‑R of 1971 while remanding the case to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner directed the case to be disposed of as follows: "The proper course should have been to transfer the portions of the disputed property in possession of the petitioners to them and that portion which was in possession of respondents 2 to 9 to them, besides such other claimants in possession of the portions of the disputed property." As in our view this was not the correct mode of the division of the property in terms of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958. we directed issue of notice to the respondents for consideration of the point as to why the petition be not converted into appeal and an open‑ended remand order be passed directing the Notified Authority to examine afresh the question of divisibility of the property and thereafter the entitlement of the claimants thereto:' The learned counsel for the respondents appeared today and consented to the passing of such an order. Accordingly, we would convert this petition into an appeal and allow it in the above terms. However, we would direct that the Notified Officer shall dispose of the case within three months. There will be no order as to costs. AA./U‑17/S Appeal allowed.