1975 PLP 514 (SCMR)
AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
| Citation | 1975 PLP 514 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- As revised--Conflicting orders passed by two different Settlement Commissioners in respect of entitlement to disputed house-Enquiry vis-a-vis occupation of house ordered by last Settlement Commis sioner but petitioner nest, impleaded in proceedings--No previous order being in field and matter to be decided afresh to determine eligibility of respondent, ends of justice, held, to be met by examination of petitioner's claim alongwith that of respondent--Directions issued accordingly. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. VII |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 514 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. VII as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 514 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- As revised--Conflicting orders passed by two different Settlement Commissioners in respect of entitlement to disputed house-Enquiry vis-a-vis occupation of house ordered by last Settlement Commis sioner but petitioner nest, impleaded in proceedings--No previous order being in field and matter to be decided afresh to determine eligibility of respondent, ends of justice, held, to be met by examination of petitioner's claim alongwith that of respondent--Directions issued accordingly. 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 514 (SCMR) (AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Hanif Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd May 1975.
- Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Hanif Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated the 22nd May 1975, in Writ Petition No. 311/R of 1971).
[As revised]--Conflicting orders passed by two different Settlement Commissioners in respect of entitlement to disputed house-Enquiry vis-a-vis occupation of house ordered by last Settlement Commis sioner but petitioner nest, impleaded in proceedings--No previous order being in field and matter to be decided afresh to determine eligibility of respondent, ends of justice, held, to be met by examination of petitioner's claim alongwith that of respondent--Directions issued accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Settlement Scheme No. VII‑-- ‑‑‑ [As revised]‑‑Conflicting orders passed by two different Settlement Commissioners in respect of entitlement to disputed house‑Enquiry vis‑a‑vis occupation of house ordered by last Settlement Commis sioner but petitioner nest, impleaded in proceedings‑‑No previous order being in field and matter to be decided afresh to determine eligibility of respondent, ends of justice, held, to be met by examination of petitioner's claim alongwith that of respondent‑‑Directions issued accordingly. Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Hanif Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd May 1975. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VII as revised. Besides Amir Abdullah Khan petitioner and Abdul Hamid respondent No. 2, there was also third applicant Musarrat Ali Khan, It is not, however, necessary to go into the background of the litigation, suffice it to say that two con flicting revisional orders were passed within a fortnight's time by two different Settlement Commissioners in respect of the disputed house. Vide order, dated 25-7‑1968, Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Sufi dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner whereby the house in question was directed to be put to auction. Sub sequently, vide his order dated 9‑8‑1968, Mr. M. A. Wasti, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner allowed revision petition of Abdul Hamid respondent No. 2, wherein he bad not impleaded the present petitioner, and directed as follows "Application for transfer by the petitioner (Abdul Hamid) would now be taken up by enquiry vis‑a‑vis the occupations over the house and the passage of fresh orders. It is in these terms that this revision petition is disposed of."
2. The position as it finally stands, therefore, is that no previous order is in the field and the matter has to be decided afresh to determine the eligibility of respondent Pro. '2 in accordance with Settlement Scheme No. VII as revised. We feel that the ends of justice would be fully net if the claim of the petitioner is also examined alongwith that of respondent No. :) in accordance with law. It is directed accordingly. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Order accordingly.