1986 PLP 603 (SCMR)
Hakim MUHAMMAD ISMAIL HABIB and others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 603 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | Hakim MUHAMMAD ISMAIL HABIB and others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 603 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 603 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 603 (SCMR) (Hakim MUHAMMAD ISMAIL HABIB and others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4‑2‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 14‑R of 1976). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Transfer of‑‑Order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on remand, challenged‑‑Plea that directions of Settlement Commissioner were not given consideration and order transferring flat was not proper, repelled‑‑Criticism found not justified on perusal of impugned order‑‑Order being not open to inter ference, petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Respondent No. 2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The only question involved in this case is whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on remand, dated 15‑11‑1975 transferring the whole flat to respondent No. 2 was legal and proper? The contention of Mr. Jariullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the Settlement Commissioner while remanding the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had observed that the latter should also see if the respondent is simply entitled to a portion of the flat or the whole of it and if he found that he was entitled only to a portion of it, the rest may be left with the petitioners herein; however, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not give any consideration to this aspect of the matter. Hence, his order was not proper. We have perused the impugned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and find that this criticism is not justified. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in his order, has clearly stated that the flat is "self‑contained and is stated not to be divisible". It is only after recording this finding that he proceeded to transfer the whole oft the flat in favour of respondent No.
2. No ground for interference is made out. This petition is dismissed M. I. Leave refused.