1968 PLP 1337 (SCMR)
Ch. ABDUR RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ABDUL ALEEM AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1337 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. ABDUR RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ABDUL ALEEM AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1337 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1337 (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 1337 (SCMR) (Ch. ABDUR RAHIM‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ABDUL ALEEM AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahmood Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ch. M: Siddiq, Senior Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 27th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 14th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 199/R of 1964). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) --Sched. Part I‑Person transferred whole property on basis of his C. H. Form by Settlement authority‑High Court in writ jurisdiction holding that he was not entitled to anything more than portion in his occupation‑Whether High Court's order justified‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The subject‑matter in dispute in this case is a big bungalow bearing No. 28‑29‑30/B. VII. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan Division while disposing review petitions by his order dated the 6th December 1963, transferred a portion of property No. 28 to Sardar Abdul Aleem (respondent No. 1) and the rest of it to Sh. Taj Din (respondent No. 2). Property No. 30 was transferred to the petitioner Ch. Abdur Rahim. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner transferring property No. 29 to Mr. A. R. Rohilla was affirmed. Sardar Abdul Aleem filed a writ Petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore against the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the order referred to above and claimed that the whole of the bungalow consisting of properties Nos. 28, 29 and 30/B. VII together with the servants quarters should have been transferred to him. The High Court has held that Sardar Abdul Aleem being a claimant in possession of a portion of property No. 28 was entitled to the whole of the property in the absence of a finding by the Settlement Authorities that it was divisible and capable of being converted into two or more residential units. In this view of the matter the learned Judges in the High Court restored the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner transferring the whole of property No. 28 to Sardar Abdul Aleem. In regard to property No. 30 it has been found that as the present petitioner claimed the portion of it which was in his possession he was not entitled to anything more than that and the rest should go to Sh. Taj Din as decided by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Mahmood Ali, has argued that the High Court has not' applied the same principle in the case of property No. 30 which has been applied to property No.
28. It is then contended that the observations of the learned Judges that the petitioner had! claimed only the portion of property No. 30 which was in possession is not correct. Our attention is drawn to the copy of the C. H. form filed by him at page
105. The learned counsel has also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to transfer a portion of property No. 30 to Taj Din. The points raised merit consideration We accordingly grant leave. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The subject‑matter in dispute in this case is a big bungalow bearing No. 28‑29‑30/B. VII. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan Division while disposing review petitions by his order dated the 6th December 1963, transferred a portion of property No. 28 to Sardar Abdul Aleem (respondent No. 1) and the rest of it to Sh. Taj Din (respondent No. 2). Property No. 30 was transferred to the petitioner Ch. Abdur Rahim. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner transferring property No. 29 to Mr. A. R. Rohilla was affirmed. Sardar Abdul Aleem filed a writ Petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore against the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the order referred to above and claimed that the whole of the bungalow consisting of properties Nos. 28, 29 and 30/B. VII together with the servants quarters should have been transferred to him. The High Court has held that Sardar Abdul Aleem being a claimant in possession of a portion of property No. 28 was entitled to the whole of the property in the absence of a finding by the Settlement Authorities that it was divisible and capable of being converted into two or more residential units. In this view of the matter the learned Judges in the High Court restored the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner transferring the whole of property No. 28 to Sardar Abdul Aleem. In regard to property No. 30 it has been found that as the present petitioner claimed the portion of it which was in his possession he was not entitled to anything more than that and the rest should go to Sh. Taj Din as decided by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Mahmood Ali, has argued that the High Court has not' applied the same principle in the case of property No. 30 which has been applied to property No.
28. It is then contended that the observations of the learned Judges that the petitioner had! claimed only the portion of property No. 30 which was in possession is not correct. Our attention is drawn to the copy of the C. H. form filed by him at page
105. The learned counsel has also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to transfer a portion of property No. 30 to Taj Din. The points raised merit consideration We accordingly grant leave. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.