1988 PLP 1227 (SCMR)
Mst. BASHIR FATIMA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FAZALUNNISA and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1227 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BASHIR FATIMA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FAZALUNNISA and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XRVIII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1227 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XRVIII of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1227 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1227 (SCMR) (Mst. BASHIR FATIMA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FAZALUNNISA and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 8 June 1980 in L.P.A. No.627 of 1966). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Evacuee property, transfer of‑‑Transfer on basis of possession of minor son‑‑Validity of transfer‑Transfer of evacuee shop on basis of possession challenged on ground that shop could not be transferred to respondent, a claimant displaced person, on basis of possession of her minor son‑‑Held, being a displaced person who had submitted a C.S. Form and the shop having been transferred to her on basis of said possession originally respondent could claim possession of the disputed shop through her minor son‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mst. Bashir Fatima and is directed against the judgment dated 8th June 1980 of the Lahore High Court Lahore passed in L.P.A. No.627 of 1966. Briefly the facts are that the shop in dispute was originally transferred to Mst. Fazalunnisa respondent No.1 against her C.S. Form on the basis of possession on 29th January 1960. Another contestant for the same namely Syed Muhammad Taqi challenged that order in appeal and thereafter by way of revision petition, but these were dismissed respectively on 2nd April 1960 and 4th April 1961. However his second revision succeeded vide order dated 12th May 1962 of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner but no relief was granted to him for the shop in question was ordered to be taken away from the respondent and was directed to be sold by auction. Thereafter the respondent challenged that order by way of a writ petition which failed but she succeeded in her L.P.A. The present petitioner was neither in possession of the shop in question nor was he in picture at that stage, as when its transfer was cancelled from the name of the respondent, it was not allotted/ transferred to anyone else but was ordered to be placed in the auction pool. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the shop in question could not be transferred to her as a claimant displaced person on the basis of the possession of her minor son. It was further submitted that a review petition had been filed by Syed Muhammad Taqi to the aforesaid writ petition but it was kept pending due to the stay order issued in favour of the respondent and that the said review petition was pending even now. These arguments had already been raised before the Division Bench and have been properly attended to. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length but in our considered view the impugned judgment is unassailable, and no interference is called for as the respondent could claim possession of the disputed shop through her minor son being a displaced person who had submitted a C.S. Form and the said shop had been transferred to her on the basis of the said possession originally. In that view of the matter there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /B‑50/S Petition dismissed.