1987 PLP 878 (SCMR)
Mst. KISHWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 878 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KISHWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 878 (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 1987 PLP 878 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 878 (SCMR) (Mst. KISHWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner's counsel.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 1987
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑1‑1987 in L.P.A. No. 65 of 1972). ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑ Dispute over transfer‑‑Sale during pendency of litigation in High Court‑‑Transferee not caring to be impleaded as a party before High Court‑‑Effect of‑‑Evacuee property in possession of two persons seeking its transfer treated indivisible and transferred to one‑‑Transferee entered into agreement of association and property was sold further during pendency of litigation‑‑Property found to be divisible by Letter Patent Bench and transferred to both occupants in accordance with their respective possession‑‑Subsequent purchaser not joining as party in appeal, sought leave to appeal on ground that she was not given opportunity of being heard‑‑Held, since petitioner had chosen to purchase property while it was subject‑matter of litigation in High Court and not cared to be impleaded, she could not complain of being condemned unheard‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th March, 1987 SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 26‑1‑1987 made in a Letters Patent Appeal.
2. The dispute in this petition relates to a composite property consisting of two shops on the ground floor and four small rooms on the first floor. When the settlement operations started, the property was occupied by two persons, namely, Muhammad Ismail and Kalu Khan, who are now dead and are represented in this petition by their legal representatives. Both Muhammad Ismail and Kalu Khan applied for transfer of the property. Muhammad Ismail was a claimant whereas Kalu Khan was a non‑claimant. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner who also exercised the powers of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner treated the property as indivisible and transferred it to Muhammad Ismail. Subsequently, Muhammad Ismail entered into an association agreement with Rao muzaffar Ali Khan, respondent No.
4. As a result of this agreement, the portion which was in the occupation of Kalu Khan was transferred to respondent No. 4.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Kalu Khan preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It was dismissed. He filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. This, too, met the same fate. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It was dismissed on 11‑1‑1972 by a learned Single Judge. From the decision of the learned Single Judge he filed a Letters Patent Appeal.
4. The Letters Patent Appeal was heard by a Division Bench. After examining the record the Division Bench found that the decision of the settlement authorities with regard to the indivisibility of the property was unsustainable. In this regard it noticed that the property had not only accommodated two families for a long time but that the portions in possession of the two families had a wall between them. It declined to remand the case to the appropriate authority for a fresh decision for the reason that it had already remained pending for about 28 years. It then directed that the portion which was in the occupation of Kalu Khan should be transferred to him and the portion which was in the possession of Muhammad Ismail be given to respondent No. 4.
5. While the L.P.A. was pending, respondent No. 4 transferred the portion that was with him to one Sh. Manzoor Ahmad by a registered sale‑deed, dated 11‑2‑1977. In his turn, Sh. Manzoor Ahmad sold the said portion to the petitioner. Neither Sh. Manzoor Ahmad nor the petitioner cared to apply for permission to join as party in the appeal.
6. In this petition the main grievance of the petitioner is that the Division Bench in the High Court has made an order adverse to her without giving her an opportunity of being heard. We do not think that we can accept this contention. The petitioner chose to purchase the property while it was the subject‑matter of litigation in the High Court. She did not care to get herself impleaded. She cannot, therefore, complain that she has been condemned unheard. It may be mentioned that during the hearing of the appeal, her predecessor‑in‑interest, namely, respondent No. 4 was duly heard through his counsel Mr. Dilawar Mehmood and Ch. Muhammad Hassan. It is then contended that the property which has been taken away from the petitioner was not the subject‑matter of the dispute before the High Court. This is also incorrect. Kalu Khan was laying claim to that portion of the house which was in his possession. As the order of the Settlement Commissioner would show, it is precisely this portion which was transferred to respondent No. 4 under the association agreement. The Division Bench has given this very portion to Kalu Khan. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the portion purchased by her was not the subject?matter of dispute in the appeal cannot be accepted. 7 . This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed M /K‑7/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed