1970 PLP 88 (SCMR)
ZAHOOR AHMAD-Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 88 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHOOR AHMAD-Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 88 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 88 (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: 1970 PLP 88 (SCMR) (ZAHOOR AHMAD-Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Idrees, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo .for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 16th May 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 900 of 1967). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I-Division of house-Within com petence of Settlement Authorities-Exception cannot be taken before High Court in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner was in possession of a shop in a composite property and this was transferred to him by the Settlement authorities. He wanted another portion of the premises not in his possession, to be transferred to him instead of Abdul Aziz, respondent. This prayer was not acceded to by the Settle ment authorities in their final order, and the petitioner sought redress against that order in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. He was not successful and seeks special leave to appeal. The order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in final revision, divided the property into three independent units and transferred them to the persons in posses sion. The respondent Abdul Aziz, though a local, was held entitled to transfer of one portion which was declared an indepen dent house, as its valuation was less than Rs. 10,000. This was an order within the jurisdiction of the Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner's powers and no exception could have been taken to it in writ jurisdiction. After hearing Mr. Muhammad Idrees, in support of the petition, we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the departmental authorities order has been made out. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.