1969 PLP 963 (SCMR)
QAMAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 963 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | QAMAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 963 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 963 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 963 (SCMR) (QAMAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th July 1967 in Writ Petition No. 240/R of 1967). --Sched, Part I--House‑Question of divisibility Decision rests exclusively within jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities‑High Court, held rightly declined to interfere with its writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 12th October 1967. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The Settlement authorities have held the shop in dispute to be indivisible and transferred it to the respondent No: 1 who as a claimant in possession had preference over the petitioner anon‑claimant., The question of divisibility being within the exclusive jurisdic tion of the Settlement authorities the High Court declined to interfere with the order of transfer in exercise of its writ jurisdiction from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal. It has been held time and again that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the determination of the Settlement authorities regarding divisibility of houses and shops. There being no special feature in the case to distinguish it from the decided cases the learned Judges rightly declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it in limine. The petition for leave to appeal is thus without any merit and we, dismiss it. Leave refused