1974 PLP 63 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wall Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

4. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1‑

3. Date of hearing: 5th October 1973. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The plot in dispute was a part of Bungalow No. SE‑16‑R‑I, Davis Road, Lahore. It was held to be in excess of the entitlement of the transferee of the bungalow. It was to be transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation bi Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, as a vacant site. The petitioner and one Jamil Ahmad applied for its transfer. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated the 29th July 1968, held, that both of theta wore not entitled to the transfer of the plot in dispute. He held, that the petitioner had built a small room and Chhaper. This construction could not be treated as permanent one. He further hold, that he had not filed any form. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 25th August, 1969. The matter was taken in revision which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 29th June, 1970, The petitioner challenged this order in writ petition which was dismissed by the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 5th February 1971. The Letters Patent Appeal No. III of 1971, filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed by order dated the 16th May, 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. Before going into the merits of this case, it may be pointed out that by the order of the Central Government, the plot in dispute has been transferred to Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, Ex‑Judge of the Lahore High Court by letter No. F. 13 (138)/64‑SP, dated the 3rd of September 1970, issued by the Rehabilitation and Works Division, West Pakistan under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has constructed a room, bath room and a Chhaper over the plot in dispute and she was entitled to the transfer of the lot dispute. This aspect of the case was considered by all the Settlement authorities and the High Court and they came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not raised a permanent construction on the plot in dispute This being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed,