1975 PLP 271 (SCMR)
Mst. ALLAH RAKHI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMEMT COMMISSIONER ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 271 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. ALLAH RAKHI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMEMT COMMISSIONER ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 271 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 271 (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: 1975 PLP 271 (SCMR) (Mst. ALLAH RAKHI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMEMT COMMISSIONER ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat All, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
- Fazal-i-Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 14th October 1974.
- Shaukat All, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 24-1-1974 in Writ Petition No. 130-R of 1974).
Art. 185(3)-Contentions that portion of properly treated as separate unit by Settlement authorities 10 years after original transfer upheld by High Court contrary to evidence on record, that having already surrendered her rights in favour of her son objector could not reagitate for transfer of such portion, same having been transferred to petitioner, and that findings being based on misreading of evidence needed reappraisal-Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions.
Judgment & Decree
Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing : 14th October 1974. MUHAMMAD AFZAL, CHEEMA, J.‑Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑1‑1974 whereby the learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the petitioner's Writ Petition Na. 130/R of 1967, she has preferred this petition for special leave to appeal. The bone of contention between the parties is basement of a composite property No. SE‑33‑R‑7/13 known as 49‑Montgomery Road, Lahore, of which different portions were transferred to the parties by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. A part of the premises was earlier transferred to Mistri Abdul Majid son of Mst. Umar Bibi respondent No. 2 who being dissatisfied with the transfer of the portion in his possession unsuccessfully litigated up to the Supreme Court, his Writ Petition No. 116/R or 1962 as also his appeal before the Supreme Court having been dismissed. It was on 29-11-71 in the course of demarcation proceedings between the petitioner and Syed Iqbal Hussain respondent No. 3 a co‑transferee of the residential portion, when for the first time the basement in question was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to Mst. Umar Bibi respondent No. 2 on the assumption that it did not constitute a part of the ground floor. It is contended by the learned counsel firstly, that it was more than a decade after the original transfer order in favour of the petitioner that for the first time the basement in question was treated as a separate unit by the Settlement Authorities whose order was upheld by the High Court contrary to evidence on the record and secondly that having already surrendered he rights in favour of her son Abdul Majid Mst. Umar Bibi respondent No. 2 could not reagitate for the transfer of the basement which already stood transferred to the petitioner. It is argued that the findings are based on misreading of evidence which needs reappraisal. Leave is granted to examine the above contentions. Security‑Re. 1,