1983 PLP M (SCMR)
Ch. ZAHOOR AHMAD-Petitioner Versus DADU KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP M (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. ZAHOOR AHMAD-Petitioner Versus DADU KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP M (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP M (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP M (SCMR) (Ch. ZAHOOR AHMAD-Petitioner Versus DADU KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th March, 1983.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4th February, 1976 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 722-R of 1966). -- Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched; para. 13 and Settlement Scheme VI-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether High Court erred in law in upholding auction in favour of respondents on assumption that earlier transfer of plot to another person being an illegal transfer did not confer any rights on him and could, therefore, be ignored.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 7th March, 1983. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The learned counsel for the petitioner Ch. Khalil. ur‑Rehman, has, inter alia, submitted that the plot in question was transferred to Saroon Khan (deceased) predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 to 4 on 15,.6‑;960 and that the transfer in favour of the said Saroon Khan was perfectly legal inasmuch asp even a local could obtain the transfer of an open plot. The view of the learned Judge in the High Court that the same could not be transferred to him because he was not a claimant was expressed by overlooking the provisions of para. 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with Settlement Scheme VI. Hence, the said plot having been validly transferred in June; 1960 was not available for transfer by auction in 1961 to respondents 5 and
6. The contention that the learned. Judge in the High Court erred in la in upholding the auction in favour of respondents 5 and 4 on the assumption that the earlier transfer of the plot to Saroon Khan on 15-6‑1960 being an illegal transfer did not confer any right, on him and could .therefore ignored, requires further consideration. Leave granted. Security in sum of Rs. 1,000 The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add additional documents, if any and. put up for hearing very early as this matter has been pending in this Court since 1976. Leave granted.