1968 SCMR 154 (PLP)
MAHBOOB ELAHI-Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS- Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 154 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | DECIDED ON FACTS AND MERITS |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | MAHBOOB ELAHI-Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS- Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 154 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 154 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the DECIDED ON FACTS AND MERITS bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 154 (PLP) (MAHBOOB ELAHI-Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS- Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gul Nawaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th June 1967, in Writ Petition No. 2968-R of 1962).
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The last order in Settlement, which was brought up before the High Court for quashment in a writ petition, is one in revision, by a Settlement Commissioner making a division of the evacuee house, between the writ petitioner Mahboob Elahi and one Muhammad Aqil. There was a slight amendment later, to clarify that certain shops forming part of the property had been transferred to their occupants. The High Court refused to interfere, and very rightly, for we find on the record-at page 75 an application made in June 1962 (the exact date is not noted) by Mahboob Elahr petitioner to the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, asking that his appendix and P. T. O. should be amended to bring inem into accord with the above-mentioned order of the 31st May 1962, which is expressly cited. That disposes of the matter, as between Mahboob Elahi and Muhammad Aqil. The petitioner had also objected, in his writ petition, to the amendment by which certain shops which had much earlier been transferred to their occupants, were assured to their transferees, by making it clear that they were not included in the expression "remaining numbers" used in the order of the3 1st May 1962, which was made in a matter to which the only parties were Mahboob Elahi and Muhammad Aqil. The objection to the saving of the transfers in favour of the shop-occupants was therefore unfounded, The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.