1991 PLP 1817 (SCMR)
SAIFUR RAHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Ch. NAZIR AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1817 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SAIFUR RAHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Ch. NAZIR AHMAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1817 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1817 (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: 1991 PLP 1817 (SCMR) (SAIFUR RAHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Ch. NAZIR AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Shamim Abbas Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th September, 1989.
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Shamim Abbas Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 12-11-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.1717-R of 1976).
Ss. 10 & 11
Property earlier auctioned was resumed due to non-payment of auction price by auction-purchaser
Respondent in possession of property filed his L.S. Form for its transfer, but Authority without first disposing of his L.S. Form filed by respondent, again put property to auction which was purchased by petitioner
While the L.S. Form of respondent remained undisposed, property, held, could not have been put to auction.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to a shop. It was evacuee property and was put to public auction. The highest bid was offered by one Pervez Khan who did not pay the auction price. The auction proceedings were therefore; cancelled and the property was resumed. He is no longer in picture. Respondent No.1 was in possession of the shop. He filed L.S. form to seek transfer of the shop. Nevertheless, the shop was again put to auction and as a result thereof it was transferred to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the transfer made in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition was accepted and the case was remanded with the direction that the L.S. form submitted by him should be disposed of first. After the remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop to respondent No.1. The petitioners challenged the order of transfer through a writ petition in the High Court. It was dismissed. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we do not think this a fit case for interference by this Court. While the L.S. Form of respondent No.1 remained undisposed, the shop could not be put to auction. The High Court was therefore, justified in not interfering with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner made in pursuance of its own remand order. The petition is dismissed. H.B, /S‑481/S Petition dismissed.