1982 PLP 665 (SCMR)
RAHIM BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 665 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Ss. 19 & 20-Appeal-Revision--Jurisdiction-Issuance of P. T. D. Does not take away appellate and revisional jurisdiction of relevant Settlement authorities if same not already exercised-Principle that once P. T. D. issued property involved no longer amenable to jurisdic tion of Settlement Authorities, held, not applicable to such cases. Jurisdiction. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAHIM BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 665 (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 1982 PLP 665 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Ss. 19 & 20-Appeal-Revision--Jurisdiction-Issuance of P. T. D. Does not take away appellate and revisional jurisdiction of relevant Settlement authorities if same not already exercised-Principle that once P. T. D. issued property involved no longer amenable to jurisdic tion of Settlement Authorities, held, not applicable to such cases. Jurisdiction. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 665 (SCMR) (RAHIM BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 28th May, 1979.
- C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-11-1974). -- Ss. 19 & 20-Appeal-Revision--Jurisdiction-Issuance of P. T. D. Does not take away appellate and revisional jurisdiction of relevant Settlement authorities if same not already exercised-Principle that once P. T. D. issued property involved no longer amenable to jurisdic tion of Settlement Authorities, held, not applicable to such cases. [Jurisdiction].
Judgment & Decree
C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 28th May, 1979. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 13th of November, 1974 whereby he dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of the present petition are that the petitioner was transferred a shop by the D. S. C. and a P. T. D. was also issued in his favour. Subsequently the Additional Settlement Commis sioner transferred the same shop to the respondent. The parties then agitated the matter before various officials in the hierarchy of the Settlement Department and finally before the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, who maintained the order in favour of the respondent No.
1. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that after the P. T. D. had been issued in the petitioner's favour, the shop in questions was no longer amenable to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities. There is no force in this contention and we are inclined to agree with the observations of the learned High Court Judge that this principle would not apply in this present case, because the issuance of a P. T. D. does not take away the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the relevant Settlement Authorities under sections 19 and 20 of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, if the same had not yet bee exercised, as in the present case. Reference in this connection may made to Mst. Inayat Bibi v. Umar Din and others 1971 S C M R 16 and Syed Ahmed Abbas Zaidi and others v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi P L D 1968 Lah.
166. In this view of the matter the petition is dismissed as having no merit. Petition dismissed.