1969 PLP 979 (SCMR)
MATIULLAH‑Petitioner Versus KAFEEL AHMAD SHAH AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 979 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MATIULLAH‑Petitioner Versus KAFEEL AHMAD SHAH AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 979 (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 1969 PLP 979 (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: 1969 PLP 979 (SCMR) (MATIULLAH‑Petitioner Versus KAFEEL AHMAD SHAH AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- F. M. Anwari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing :12th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 14/R of 1964).
Sched., Part I‑ Whether a person had filed C. H. Form in time‑Question whether could be gone into by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing :12th October 1967. FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑The dispute in this case is with respect to house No. 78/48 situate at Shorkot in ‑the district of Jhang. In 1960, it was put in the earmarking scheme and as in the lots it was drawn in the name of Matiulluh a formal P. T. O. was issued to him. Representation of Kafeel Ahmad Shah, a claimant displaced person who was in possession of the house, for deletion of the house from the earmarking scheme was rejected and his objection that before disposal of his C. H. Form transfer of this house t, earmarking scheme was illegal, was overruled by the Settlement Department. The Department took the view that he had not filed C. H. Form in time. Kafeel Ahmad then moved a writ in the High Court. The learned Judges who heard the writ petition held that the petitioner Kafeel Ahmad Shah had in fact filed the form and he cannot be disentitled on the erroneous ground that no form had been filed by him'. They therefore ordered that the house should be transferred to Kafeel Ahmad Shah. Matiullah seeks Special Leave to Appeal to this Court. It was contended that determination of the question whether Kafeel Ahmad Shah had filed a C. H. Form within time should have been left to the Settlement Department. In our opinion, the above contention is not entirely without force. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security Rs. 1000 Leave granted.