1975 PLP 193 (SCMR)
SULEMAN KHAN AND others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1975 PLP 193 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULEMAN KHAN AND others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | Evidence, reappraisal of |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 193 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence, reappraisal of as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 193 (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: 1975 PLP 193 (SCMR) (SULEMAN KHAN AND others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd October 1974.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 23rd November 1973, in Writ Petition No. 408 of 1971). -- Submissions made before Supreme Court bare repetition of those canvassed at all stages from Deputy Settlement Commissioner to High Court and residential units claimed ail along held, as a finding of fact, to have already been transferred many years ago to another person thus leaving no room for disposal in petitioner's favour--Supreme Court, held, could not, in circumstances, be expected to undertake reappraisal of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑The petitioners claim to be entitled to one of the residential units of the composite property consisting of 4 residential and 8 commercial units, bearing No. P‑150 in Street No. 4 of Ward VI, Anarkah Bazar, Lyallpur. The claim was originally made by Qasim Khan and his wife Kubra Begum, predecessors‑in‑interest of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 under Settlement Scheme No. VIII by filing an N. C. H. form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur after examining the record and visiting the site rejected the N. C. H. form on the ground that all residential as well as commercial units of the property had been disposed of under Settlement Scheme No. 1, by an earlier order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur dated 24th December 1959, and "there is, therefore, no room or portion left for disposal under Scheme No. VIII ". On appeal, this finding was affirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner after inspection of the property and satisfying himself that the various units of the property have already been transferred so that no part of it seems "available" for purpose of Scheme No. VIII. After this, the Settlement Commissioner examined the case in details and he dismissed revision application of the petitioners on the ground that all the units of the property had been disposed of under Scheme No. I by the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24th December 1959. The petitioners then called in question these orders in Writ Petition No. 408 of 1971 in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge of that Court, after examining the claim of the petitioners in the light of the record of the case also reached the same conclusion that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of 24th December 1959 "related to the disposal of the whole property". He, therefore, dismissed the writ petition on 6th December 1973. Petitioners now seek special leave to appeal, and the submissions made in support of the petition are just the bare repetition of those that were canvassed at all the stages of the case from Deputy Settlement Commis sioner up to the High Court. Since it has been all along held as a finding of fact that all the four residential units of the property were transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as long ago as 29th December 1959, and these findings not only have full support in record, but on site‑inspection of the property, both the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner also confirmed this conclusion, we not see how the petitioners could expect this Court to undertake a re appraisal of evidence. The petition has no merit, in fact, it is, totally misconceived and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.