1970 PLP 129 (SCMR)
Syed AZIZ-UR-RAHMAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HABIB BANO AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 129 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed AZIZ-UR-RAHMAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HABIB BANO AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 129 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 129 (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: 1970 PLP 129 (SCMR) (Syed AZIZ-UR-RAHMAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HABIB BANO AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. B. Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Sultan Hussain, Special Attorney for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2-6.
- Date of hearing : 3rd October 1967.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2‑6.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th March 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 186 of 1964). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I-Transfer of house-Claimant filing CH Form in respect of particular house whether does not forfeit hic right to such house by filing application in Form E for participation in earmarking scheme-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. Abdur Rashid's case Civil Petition No. 73 of 1965 ref.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The office reports that this petition is time‑barred by 7 days, but on examining the stamp on the copy of the order sought to be appealed against, we find that the dates of preparation and delivery have been corrected and over written, and we accordingly leave the question open for decision at the hearing, in case objection is taken on the point. In this case, the respondents' success is based on the High Court holding that .a. claimant, who has filed a CH Form in respect of a particular house does not forfeit the right to such house by filing an application in Form E for participation in an earmarking Scheme. This view is directly contrary to the expressed by this Court in a judgment in the case of Abdur Rashid Civil Petition No. 73 of 1965. It is pointed out by learned counsel that there are entries in Form E itself which point. to the conclusion that a person wishing to participate in an earmarking Scheme has to relinquish his claims under a CH Form. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security Rs. 1,
000. Stay of delivery of possession to continue. Leave granted.