1991 PLP 1875 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Petitioner Versus Munshi MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1875 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Petitioner Versus Munshi MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1875 (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 1875 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1875 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Petitioner Versus Munshi MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Sultan Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1990.
- Malik A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Sultan Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment and order dated 6-7-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No.84/R of 1987).
S. 10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Shop in dispute constructed by respondent was given on rent to son of petitioner who never applied for its transfer
Petitioner himself being not in possession of shop on crucial date (1-1-1976) he was not entitled for its transfer
No justification existed to interfere with order of Courts below
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.84‑R of 1987 dated 6‑7‑1987 whereby the respondent No.1's writ petition was allowed on the ground that the shop in .possession of the petitioner was constructed by the respondent and had been given on rent to Taj Din son of the petitioner. Taj Din had never applied for the transfer of this shop and the petitioner was by no means entitled to the transfer of the shop constructed by the respondent.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not relevant whether the respondent had constructed the shop or not. Since the petitioner was in possession, he should have been transferred the shop.
3. The contention is without force for the reason that the shop constructed by the respondent was given on rent to the son of the petitioner who never applied for its transfer. Since the petitioner himself was not in possession of the shop on the crucial date i.e. 1‑1‑1976, he was not entitled for its transfer. The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. There is no justification to interfere. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T/M‑1305/S Petition dismissed.