1983 PLP 1048 (SCMR)
CAPT. HIDAYAT ALI-Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1048 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | CAPT. HIDAYAT ALI-Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1048 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1048 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1048 (SCMR) (CAPT. HIDAYAT ALI-Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid Ahmad Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1983.
- Rashid Ahmad Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-5-1977 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 716/R of 1977). -- Art. 185(3)-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10
.Leave to appeal--Petitioner in possession of large house raising plea that he eras entitled to transfer of servant quarters--Settlement Commissioner on spot inspection finding quarters to be distinct and separate entity anti High Court not interfering with findings of Settlement Commissioner-Examination of site plan and relevant documents showing view taken by High Court to be just and fair requiring no interference--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The petitioner's writ petition in the High Court (W. P. No. 716‑R of 1977) was admitted to a regular hearing on one question but rejected as regards another matter, namely, his plea that he was entitled to the transfer of servant .quarters of a large house, a portion of which is in his possession. The learned Judge in the High Court on this aspect of the matter observed :‑ "As regards the servant quarters, the learned Settlement Commissioner, after spot inspection, held that those constituted distinct unit being situated on a different Khasra No. and were separated from the main bungalow with a dead wall and opened out in a separate lane. It was directed that those be disposed of separately in favour of the occupant applicants." It was further held that the quarters have been found, after spot inspection by the Settlement Commissioner himself as distinct and separate entity and such a finding was uninterferable by the High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, examined the site plan and other documents shown to us and are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is a just and fair one and does not require any interference. This Petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed