1969 PLP 950 (SCMR)
Syed ANWAR ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 950 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J |
| Parties | Syed ANWAR ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 950 (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 1969 PLP 950 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 950 (SCMR) (Syed ANWAR ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Respondent No. 5.
- Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of the order of this Court, dated the 14th April 1967, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 49 of 1967). --Sched, Part I and Settlement Scheme No. 1 and para. 22‑A‑Evaluation of house‑House valued at Rs. 300 p.a. by Excise & Taxation Department but value shown in Municipal Registers at Rs. 180 p.a.‑Held: Settlement Authorities competent to increase lower of two valuations by 50 per cent if value appears to be too low.
Judgment & Decree
Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to
4. Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Respondent No.
5. Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967. CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The petitioner seeks review of this Court's order of the 14th April 1967, dismissing his petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court in Letters Patent appeal upholding the decision of the Settlement authorities that a house, of which the petitioner, a local, was seeking transfer, was of value exceeding Rs. 10,
000. The house was valued at Rs. 300 per annum by the Excise and Taxation Department, but at Rs. 180 per annum in the Municipal Registers. The order of this Court mentions that the Settlement Commis sioner himself inspected the house, and described it as "big two‑storeyed commodious house," worth much more than appeared from the municipal assessment. The argument now raised is that under Paragraph 22‑A of Settlement Scheme No. 1, the lower of the two valuations should have been accepted. The High Court had referred to clause (2) of this paragraph which gives power to Settlement authorities to increase the value by as much as 50 per cent. where the valuation under the formula provided in clause (1) appears to them to be too law. The condition was clearly satisfied, since the valuation by the Municipal Committee was visibly too low. No ground for review appears. We dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.