SCMR 1986

1986 PLP 1553 (SCMR)

Sheikh AHMAD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 313 of 1975 decided on 8th August, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 1553 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ
Parties Sheikh AHMAD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1553 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1553 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1553 (SCMR) (Sheikh AHMAD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 8th August, 1981.
  • A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-9-1975, in Writ Petition No.1155-R of 1970). --Art. 185 (3)--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10/11--Petitioners who were transferred a shop claiming that roof of shop, which formed part of a hotel already transferred to respondent, was also transferred to them with shop- Respondent had long ago raised construction over roof and converted into and made it a part of their hotel--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether such a transfer of roof of shop of petitioners to respondent as part of their converted hotel was in accordance with law applicable to cases of the type.

Judgment & Decree

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑It is argued that no doubt the transfer of the Kashmir Hotel was made to the respondents earlier on 6‑8‑1970 followed by a P . T . O . dated 9‑11‑1960 and P . T . D . , dated 6‑3‑1962 but later on the petitioners were also on 14‑3‑1967 transferred through public auction the shop (to speak generally) which was in the auction list/or other relevant documents described as shop "vertically". This gave rise to the present litigation which ended with the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 16‑6‑1970 and of the High Court, dated 26‑9‑1975 (in W.P. 1155‑R/1970) wherein it was held that by obtaining transfer of a hotel, the respondents had also in that way already obtained transfer of the roof of the shop of the petitioners, which roof used to be in possession of the respondents where they had long ago raised certain construction which was a part of that hotel, and which roof in that form they had converted into and made a part of their hotel. That the aforesaid roof was so converted by the respondents has been held as a finding of fact by the Courts below but the learned counsel challenges that finding and also states that the roof of his shop could in no circumstance or under any law have been given to the respondents who could claim transfer of their own shops or portions and not of the roof of the petitioner's shop. It is further argued that with regard to a similar roof of another adjoining shop which the respondents claimed, their claim was not accepted but discrimination without any distinction was made in the case of the petitioners' roof. Leave is granted to consider whether such a transfer of roof of the shop of the petitioners to the respondents as a part of their converted hotel was in accordance with law applicable to cases of this type. Security Rs.2,

000. M. Y. H. Leave granted.