1969 PLP 932 (SCMR)
Hafiz HABIB AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus YAKOOB KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 932 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Hafiz HABIB AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus YAKOOB KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 932 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 932 (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: 1969 PLP 932 (SCMR) (Hafiz HABIB AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus YAKOOB KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saeedur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing :,l0th.October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 2nd March 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1994/R of 1963). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
Sched., Part I‑Premises divided into several units and each unit declared to be an independent house‑Transferee of one such unit cannot lay claim to another unit.
Judgment & Decree
Sched., Part I‑Premises divided into several units and each unit declared to be an independent house‑Transferee of one such unit cannot lay claim to another unit. Saeedur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing :,l0th.October 1967. FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑In this case the dispute is with respect to eastern portion of House No. G/15, Railway Road, Ward No. 4, Muzaffargarh. The Settlement Department has divided this house into three portions and transferred them to different persons who were in possession of the same. Hafiz Hibib Ahmad, a transferee of one of the portions, filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the orders of the Settle ment authorities. The learned Judges of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition observed :‑ "Each portion has been declared by the Settlement Commis sioner to be self‑independent. The house which has been transferred to the petitioner constitutes a separate unit by itself. He has, therefore, no locus standi to get another house in the form of various portions which have been transferred to respondents Nos. 1 and 2," It cannot be said that the Settlement authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in dividing the disputed house in separate units. Furthermore, as pointed out by the High Court, this petitioner was entitled to only one of those portions, which may be regarded as a separate house. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the order of the Settlement authorities. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.