1976 PLP 356 (SCMR)
GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN‑Appellant Versus MANZOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 356 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed Muhammad Afzal Cheema, |
| Parties | GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN‑Appellant Versus MANZOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 356 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 356 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed Muhammad Afzal Cheema,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 356 (SCMR) (GHULAM MOHY‑UD‑DIN‑Appellant Versus MANZOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazl‑i‑Azam Hamdani Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- S. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 19th January 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd of October 19677, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 1967). Respondents Nos. 2‑3 : Ex paste.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED J.‑This appeal by special leave of this Court is from an order of a Division Bench of the then High Court of West ; Pakistan, Lahore, dismissing the appellant's letters patent appeal. The dispute between the parties is over shop No. 298, Chowk Banni, Rawalpindi. The appellant said that he was a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir. He claimed that he had been in possession of the shop and had filed K N C S Form for its transfer. Nevertheless, lie complained, the shop was put up to auction on the 28th of February 1965, under the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and it was purchased by respondent Manzoor Elahi. In the appeal filed by the appellant the Additional Settlement Commissioner had personally checked the register and found that entry regarding the submission of a form by the appellant was an interpolation. Later on in revision the Settlement Commissioner maintained this finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner further found that the appellant was never in possession of the shop. In support of this finding the Settlement Commissioner pointed out that in the list of the property at the auction the shop appeared to be in possession of Nooruddin and Ferozeuddin. Furthermore that in his application for deleting the shop from the auction list the appellant stated that he was an allottee of the shop and paid rent for it. There was, however, nothing to show that the shop was ever allotted to him or he paid rent for it. In his writ petition before the High Court the appellant sought to produce for the first time two receipts in support of his claim that he had paid rent for the shop. The learned Single Judge of the High Court rightly refused to permit the appellant to do so. It may be mentioned here that the receipts are not on record and never placed before the Settlement Commissioner. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal before us again sought to refer to the aforesaid receipts. Furthermore he sought to refer to certain survey register and survey list, which too had never been placed before the Settlement authority or before the High Court. Of course we did not permit the learned counsel to do so. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the finding of the Settlement authorities and the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Judges of the High Court observed that the questions raised were questions of fact and they were based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.