1968 PLP 1330 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1330 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1330 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1330 (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: 1968 PLP 1330 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th May 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 757/R of 1964). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXYIII of 1958)
Sched‑Claim of person for transfer of property rejected by Settlement authorities‑Writ petition filed two years after final order passed by Settlement Commissioner‑Petition, held, rightly dismissed by High Court‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. JUDGMENT FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.--‑Dispute in this case relates to property No. 272‑B‑II in Montgomery. Claim of the petitioners to this property was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and so far they are concerned his order was also upheld on appeal and in revision. In 1964, they filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the order of the revisional authority which had been passed on 6th June 1962. They, however, gave no explanation for this inordinate delay in moving a writ in the High Court. The High Court while upholding the order of the Settlement Authorities on merits rightly observed:‑ "We might add that this petition is also liable to be dismissed upon the ground that it was filed two years after the order of the Settlement Commissioner." We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for grant of special leave. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.--‑Dispute in this case relates to property No. 272‑B‑II in Montgomery. Claim of the petitioners to this property was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and so far they are concerned his order was also upheld on appeal and in revision. In 1964, they filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the order of the revisional authority which had been passed on 6th June 1962. They, however, gave no explanation for this inordinate delay in moving a writ in the High Court. The High Court while upholding the order of the Settlement Authorities on merits rightly observed:‑ "We might add that this petition is also liable to be dismissed upon the ground that it was filed two years after the order of the Settlement Commissioner." We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for grant of special leave. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.