1984 PLP 1202 (SCMR)
NAWAB BEGUM and another — Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1202 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | NAWAB BEGUM and another — Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1202 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1202 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1202 (SCMR) (NAWAB BEGUM and another — Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Mr. Shahzad Jhangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1983.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mr. Shahzad Jhangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 12th February, 1980, in W.P. 572/8-73) --Arts. 185(3) & 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched.--Transfer of building to Municipal Corporation as school building--Petitioner's claim for transfer of portion in his possession on C . H . Form rejected on ground that such portion was inseparable from main building and that its transfer for residential purpose was undesirable in interest of school--Refusal of High Court to grant relief to petitioner in its discretionary jurisdiction--Held, fully justified in facts and circumstances of case--Leave to appeal -re-Fused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched.‑‑Transfer of building to Municipal Corporation as school building‑‑Petitioner's claim for transfer of portion in his possession on C . H . Form rejected on ground that such portion was inseparable from main building and that its transfer for residential purpose was undesirable in interest of school‑‑Refusal of High Court to grant relief to petitioner in its discretionary jurisdiction‑‑Held, fully justified in facts and circumstances of case‑‑Leave to appeal ‑re‑Fused. Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Mr. Shahzad Jhangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th August, 1983. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ This petition arises out of an urban settlement case relating to the transfer of the building in dispute to the Lahore Municipal Corporation as a school building, while the petitioners claimed to be in possession of a small portion thereof. The petitioners' side had applied on a C . H . Form for the transfer of the portion in their possession. In the last order impugned in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction the portion was treated as inseparable from the main building of the school and also its transfer for residence to the petitioners was considered as undivisible in the interest of the school. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners' claim being under a C . H . Form should have been preferred over the school a local institu tion, for the entire property. He also contended that as a converted property, the building could not be transferred to school. He has also relied on an earlier order of remand by the High Court. There does not seem to be any force in the arguments of the learned counsel but it is not necessary to deal with them in detail because the refusal of the High Court to grant relief to the petitioners in its discretionary jurisdiction in this case was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the petitioners C.H. Form was only for a part of the school building. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, which is accordingly refused. S. Q. Leave refused.