1995SCMR180 (PLP)
BARKAT ULLAH SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SAMIR‑UN‑NISA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR180 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ . and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | BARKAT ULLAH SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SAMIR‑UN‑NISA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR180 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR180 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ . and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR180 (PLP) (BARKAT ULLAH SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SAMIR‑UN‑NISA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mubashir Latif, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Anwarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1994.
- 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the disputed portion of the property was in fact originally in occupation of one Badaruddin to whom it was transferred and the petitioner through association with him got the same transferred in his favour. It was also contended that Muhammad Rafiq husband of Mst. Samir‑un‑Nisa had been ejected from a room occupied by him and the petitioner accommodated him in another room. The order of transfer obtained by Mst. Samir‑un‑Nisa in respect of the disputed property is illegal because the same was not available for transfer as building site to her. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner have no merit. The petitioner at no stage asserted that the disputed property was obtained by him through association with one Badaruddin. This contention therefore, cannot be pressed into service for the first time at this stage.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2‑12‑1992, in W.P. 296‑R/1978). ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dispute relating to transfer of plot‑‑‑Plot in question, was transferred in favour of predecessor‑in interest of respondents‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against such allotment on ground that plot in question, formed part of the property already transferred to him was dismissed on the ground that said plot did not form part of the property transferred to petitioner‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner at no stage asserted that he had obtained that property through association with some other person (stranger to litigation)‑‑‑Such contention, thus, could not be pressed for the first time before Supreme Court‑‑‑Transfer order in favour of petitioner showed that he was never in occupation of plot in question, therefore, petitioner's contention that plot in question formed part of the property already transferred to him Was against the record‑‑‑Order in question, dismissing petitioner's Constitutional petition was unexceptionable and called for no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 2‑12‑1992, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No. 296‑R/1978, filed by him was dismissed.
2. The dispute in this case relates to a portion of Property No. SE 6‑R‑245, Ihata Karam Chand, Mayo Road (Old Dharampura), Lahore. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 22‑9‑1960, transferred different portions of the property to various occupants thereof. The petitioner was also transferred a portion of the property which was in his possession.
3. In the year 1976, Mst. Samir‑un‑Nisa the predecessor‑in‑interest of (i) Abdul Saeed, (ii) Abdul Rashid, (iii) Abdul Waheed, (iv) Shamim Begum and (v) Nasim Begum filed B.S. Form for the transfer of plot measuring 6 Marlas located in the building over which she allegedly raised some construction. The Settlement Inspector visited the spot and made a report about her possession and construction raised by her. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Settlement Inspector transferred on 22‑11‑1976, an area measuring 6 Marlas and 162 sq.ft. in her favour.
4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court through Writ petition No.296‑R/1978, on the ground that the disputed plot formed part of the property. already transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 22‑9‑1960. The writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order holding that the property in dispute did not form part of the property transferred to the petitioner and he had no valid claim for its transfer.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the disputed portion of the property was in fact originally in occupation of one Badaruddin to whom it was transferred and the petitioner through association with him got the same transferred in his favour. It was also contended that Muhammad Rafiq husband of Mst. Samir‑un‑Nisa had been ejected from a room occupied by him and the petitioner accommodated him in another room. The order of transfer obtained by Mst. Samir‑un‑Nisa in respect of the disputed property is illegal because the same was not available for transfer as building site to her. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner have no merit. The petitioner at no stage asserted that the disputed property was obtained by him through association with one Badaruddin. This contention therefore, cannot be pressed into service for the first time at this stage. As regards the other contention the perusal of the transfer order of portion of the property by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his favour shows that he was never in occupation of a vacant plot located in the building, therefore, this contention is also against the record. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and calls for no interference by this Court. This petition is dismissed and leave refused.‑ AA./B‑242/S Leave refused.