1982 PLP 969 (SCMR)
HASSAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 969 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re habilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2-Writ jurisdiction-Division of property-Held, sole discretion of Settlement Authorities and cannot be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdic tion.-Jurisdiction. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HASSAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 969 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 969 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re habilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2-Writ jurisdiction-Division of property-Held, sole discretion of Settlement Authorities and cannot be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdic tion.-Jurisdiction. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 969 (SCMR) (HASSAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th April, :982.
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-12-1974, in Writ Petition 1572-R/74).
Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re habilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2-Writ jurisdiction-Division of property-Held, sole discretion of Settlement Authorities and cannot be interfered with by High Court in its constitutional jurisdic tion.-[Jurisdiction].
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑This is a petition against an order dated 10‑12‑1974, whereby a constitutional petition bearing No. 1572‑R/74, was dismissed by the High Court.
2. It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the stages through which the present case has passed, and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to mention, that the petitioner has been transferred one room existing in property No. S‑XX‑5‑S‑58, Canal Park, Lahore. Two other rooms in the same property which have been treated as shops have been transferred to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 separately, by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 31‑1‑1973 passed in pursuance of implementation of an order of the learned Settlement Commis sioner, dated 19‑7‑1972, whereby he held that the aforesaid two rooms could be and should be treated as two separate shops. The High Court examined the matter during the course of the hearing of the constitutional petition above‑mentioned and was of the view that the petitioner had not take any exception at the proper stage against the order of the Settlement Commis sioner, dated 19‑7‑1972 aforesaid. They held that even otherwise the question of division was in the sole discretion of the settlement authorities and if they divided the property as above‑mentioned, their orders cannot be held as to be without lawful authority.
3. Learned counsel has repeated the same plea before us, viz. that the whole of the property, viz. three rooms should be transferred to him as one unit. The contention has no merit. The Settlement Authority had the jurisdiction to divide a property and it has repeatedly been held that matter of division ordinary should not be interfered with in its constitutional jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court in the instant case committed no mistake by acting on this principle.
4. Even otherwise on our part we feel the impugned orders of the settlement authorities are substantially fair and just inasmuch as they purport to rehabilitate three persons and three families by giving one room to each of them and in this way have settled the petitioner particularly in the room which was in his possession and have rightly not given rest of the two rooms to him when they were in the possession of the others.
5. In our opinion this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.