1991 PLP 1919 (SCMR)
Mst. KALSOOM BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1919 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KALSOOM BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus BASHIR 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 1919 (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 1919 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1919 (SCMR) (Mst. KALSOOM BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Javid Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1989.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Javid Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 3-6-1987 of the Lahore High Court in LC.A./L.PA.No. 172 of 1968).
S. 10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Transfer of property-- Common ground between parties before Authorities was that shop and disputed Chobara thereon were one unit and Appellate Authority considering same as one unit transferred the same to respondent
Question whether shop and Chobara were two different properties bearing different numbers was one of fact which was not raised before Authorities
Case of petitioner challenging such transfer itself before Authorities was that chobara and shop were one unit
High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, rightly refused to entertain contention of petitioner that chobara and shop were two different properties
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The contest between the parties is about a Chobara which overlies a shop in Hamayun Bazar, Sheikhupura. Both parties are non‑claimants. The Chobara was allotted to Rao Hakim Ali, predecessor‑in -interest of the petitioners, while the shop was allotted to respondent No.l. When the settlement operations started an Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred the Chobara alongwith the shop to Rao Hakim Ali. Respondent No.l filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner holding that he was not competent to make an order of transfer. Before him it was common ground between the parties that the shop and the Chobara were one 'unit. The Additional Settlement Commissioner thought that the Chobara was part of the shop and therefore, it should be given to respondent No.l. He made an order accordingly. Rao Hakim Ali preferred a revision petition before: the Settlement Commissioner but it, was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court but that too was dismissed. 'He preferred a Letters Patent Appeal. That too remained unsuccessful. His legal reprehensive now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the Chobara and the shop were two different properties bearing different numbers and as such these could not be transferred to one person. It is to be noticed that the question whether the shop and the Chobara were two different properties bearing different numbers was one of fact. This question was not raised before the Settlement authorities. In fact the case of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners before the said authorities was that the Chobara and the shop were one unit. It is 'therefore difficult to entertain this contention of the petitioners in writ jurisdiction. Leave is refused. H.B.T./K‑138/S Leave refused.