2004 PLP 790 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMEED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 790 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 790 (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 2004 PLP 790 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 790 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMEED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alain Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore passed on 1‑4‑2002 in Writ Petition No.266‑R of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Non‑submission of forms for allotment of property as refugee from Jammu and Kashmir‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitioner claimed to be in possession of disputed property alongwith respondent since long as refugees‑‑‑Settlement Commissioner allotted property to respondent after finding that he had submitted form for its allotment‑‑‑Petitioner having not submitted any form could not lay claim on such property on any score.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Non‑submission of forms for allotment of property as refugee from Jammu and Kashmir‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitioner claimed to be in possession of disputed property alongwith respondent since long as refugees‑‑‑Settlement Commissioner allotted property to respondent after finding that he had submitted form for its allotment‑‑‑Petitioner having not submitted any form could not lay claim on such property on any score. Noor Alain Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2002. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 1‑4‑2002, whereby Writ Petition No.266/R of 1995 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Facts briefly for the disposal of this petition are that Muhammad Shafi, husband of respondent No.2, was a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir. It is the case of the petitioners that they are also refugees from Jammu and Kashmir and are occupying the disputed property alongwith respondent No.2 since creation of Pakistan. They filed forms which were misplaced whereupon the disputed property was auctioned on 17‑5‑1966 which was confirmed on 2nd June, 1966. The husband of respondent No.2 took exception to the auction proceedings by filing an appeal whereupon through order dated 2nd January, 1967, the Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot remanded the case and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to decide, whether Muhammad Sultan and others (appellants in Settlement Appeal) were refugees from Jammu and Kashmir and if so whether them submitted forms for the allotment of the disputed property. A direction was also given that if it was proved that they submitted forms then the disputed property be transferred to them on those forms otherwise the property would be put to restricted auction among the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. After the remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, took up the matter and found Muhammad Shafi, the predecessor‑in terest of respondent No.2 as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, who had filed form for the allotment of the property and consequently the same was allotted, to the widow of respondent No.2. Admittedly, petitioners have not submitted any form and cannot lay claim on the disputed property on any score. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and leave is refused. S.A.K./A‑306/S Leave refused.