1989 PLP 2000 (SCMR)
NASIM AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus IRSHAD ALI and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2000 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NASIM AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus IRSHAD ALI and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2000 (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 1989 PLP 2000 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid lqbal, 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: 1989 PLP 2000 (SCMR) (NASIM AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus IRSHAD ALI and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M.Hamid Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mahmoodul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA.Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 4‑7‑84 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P No.1117/R of 1977). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners entered into an agreement with respondent for the transfer of half of the double storey house by a vertical partition‑‑Agreement was not immediately accepted as another occupant of the house had challenged the transfer of the whole house to the respondent‑‑Said occupant, subsequently succeeded in getting the ground floor transferred in his favour‑‑After the dispute relating to the transfer of house had been finally settled in favour of occupant, Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the association agreement between the respondent and predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and directed that they were entitled to share the upper floor of the house in terms of agreement‑‑High Court set aside order of the Settlement Commissioner relying upon the terms of agreement of association and also the fact that with the transfer of the ground floor to its occupant the material basis of the agreement of association had disappeared and that it was no longer possible to give effect to the same‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the reasons given by the High Court in support of its order.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 4‑7‑84 of the Lahore High Court declaring, in writ jurisdiction, the order dated 31‑7‑1977 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect:
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a double storey house situate in Sant Nagar, Lahore. The whole house was transferred on 15‑10‑65 to Irshad Ali, respondent No.1. After the transfer, Irshad Ali entered into an agreement of association with Niaz Ahmad Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. Under the agreement, Niaz Ahmad Khan undertook to pay the entire transfer price partly in cash and partly by way of adjustment of his compensation book and in return thereof Irshad Ali agreed to transfer half of the house to him by a vertical partition thereof. The agreement was filed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who recorded the statements of the parties. However, the agreement was not immediately accepted as another occupant of the house, namely, Abdur Rauf, had challenged the transfer of the whole house to Irshad Ali. Subsequently, Abdur Rauf succeeded in getting the ground floor transferred in his favour. Thus, Irshad Ali was left only with the upper floor. The matter of transfer was agitated by both Irshad Ali and Niaz Ahmad right up to the High Court but without any success.
3. After the dispute relating to the transfer of the house had been finally settled, a controversy arose between Irshad Ali and Niaz Ahmad over the agreement of association. By an order dated 31‑7‑77 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the association agreement and directed that both Irshad Ali and Niaz Ahmad were entitled to share the upper floor of the house in terms of the agreement. Irshad Ali invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In making this order, the learned Single Judge relied upon the terms of the agreement of association and also.the fact that with the transfer of the ground floor to Abdur Rauf, the material basis of the agreement of association had disappeared and that it was no longer possible to give effect to the same.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Irshad Ali, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in support of this order need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. M.A.K./N‑181/S Leave granted.