1986 PLP 427 (MLD)
HABIB AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 427 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | HABIB AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No.I‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 427 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No.I‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 427 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 427 (MLD) (HABIB AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Naqi for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Para. 22‑‑Assessment of evacuee property‑‑Where no assessment of evacuee property was available for year 1946, its price, held, was to be calculated in accordance with para. 22 of Settlement Scheme No.I by giving 3% reduction in assessment made in 1947.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Muhammad Naqi for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986. Through this Constitutional Petition, Habib Ahmad, petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 19‑9‑1975 and 26‑3‑1978 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that House No.P/85, situated in Islampura, Toba Tek Singh was transferred to Mian Muhammad, father of Habib Ahmad petitioner on 26‑11‑1965 under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner assessed the price of the property to be Rs.4,800 on the assumption that its annual rent per record of Municipal Committee was Rs.120. On 23‑3‑1978 the petitioner moved application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner respondent that since rental value of the house in dispute per record of Municipal Committee was Rs.4 per month, therefore, the price of the house be calculated accordingly. This application was rejected on 26‑3‑1978, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the annual rent of the house has been assessed on wrong facts inasmuch as although the assessment of property in dispute was proposed as Rs.120 per annum yet it was ordered to be assessed at Rs.48 per annum for the year 1947. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert him.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that since no assessment of the property in dispute for the year 1946 was available, therefore, its price was to be calculated in accordance with para. 22 of Settlement Scheme No.I by giving 3% reduction in the assessment of 1947 which comes to Rs.46.50 per annum and as such the impugned orders are not only illegal but also have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
5. For what has been said above, writ petition is accepted and the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.A Petition accepted.