1976 PLP 327 (SCMR)
AJAB KHAN ‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION,
| Citation | 1976 PLP 327 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed and Anwarul Haq, JJ |
| Parties | AJAB KHAN ‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION, |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. VII‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 327 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. VII‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 327 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed and Anwarul Haq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 327 (SCMR) (AJAB KHAN ‑Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated the tad of June 1975, in Writ Petition No. 445 of 1974). ‑‑ Para. 2‑Petitioner' not found in possession of house‑Not entitled to transfer Statement of Patwari that petitioner alone was in occupation of house put in before Supreme Court for first time and never placed either before Settlement authority of High Court Held cannot be taken into consideration. Date of bearing : 9th October 1975.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of bearing : 9th October 1975. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J: There is no dispute that the house in dispute was covered by Settlement Scheme No. VII, and was transferable only to a person who was in occupation of the house. The petitioner claimed that he was in occupation of the house, and was in fact issued n Permanent Transfer Order dated the 20th of January, 1969. The learned Settlement Commissioner, however, found that neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 5 was in possession of the house, bait that it was occupied as 'Patwari Khans'. The order dated the 25th of January, 1973 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 25th January 1973, transferring the house to the petitioner and cancelling the aforesaid transfer order in favour of respondent was accordingly cancelled, The Deputy Settlement Commissioner was directed to transfer the house to the Revenue Department, and to issue the Permanent ‑Transfer Deed in the name of the Tehsildar. On behalf of the petitioner it has beers contended that the Tehsildar could not be transferred the house as he was not the person in occupation. This contention even if held valid cannot help the petitioner because hey was not found to be in possession of the house and was, therefore, not entitled to its transfer. This finding was arrived at by the Settlement Commissioner who was fully competent to do so and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the statement of the patwari put in for the first time in this Court saying ‑that the petitioner was in occupation of the rouse and that none else occupied it. Obviously this statement cannot be taken into consideration. It was never placed before either the Settlement Commissioner or the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.