1976 PLP 525 (SCMR)
Malik TOFAZZAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1976 PLP 525 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Malik TOFAZZAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation ) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 525 (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 1976 PLP 525 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 525 (SCMR) (Malik TOFAZZAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th March 1974.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 29th May 1973, in L. P. A. No. 49 of 1967).
Sched. Part II‑Transfer of shop‑Shop purchased by petitioner at auction and provisional transfer order issued‑Auction, however, subsequently set aside by higher authorities as irregular and sale not confirmed‑Auction not having been confirmed, petitioner not having paid entire price of shop, and P. T. O. not having transferred any title to petitioner, impugned order of High Court, held, could not be challenged in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑This leave petition is directed against the order of the High Court allowing the Letters Patent Appeal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, and maintaining the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 28th May 1962. The shop in dispute had been put up to auction and it was purchased by the appellant for Rs. 1000 and a provisional transfer order was issued to him. Sher Ali, an old tenant of the shop objected to the auction on the ground that he was unable to participate in the auction due to the incorrect particulars given in the Auction List about the location of the shop and its occupant. It transpired later that the suction proceedings were irregular and the auction was not confirmed. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, therefore, by his order dated the 28th May 1962, declared that the shop be put to auction again. This order was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition. The petition was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court. On the Letters Patent Appeal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 however, the writ petition was dismissed. The Provisional Transfer Order did not transfer any title to the appellant. The auction was not confirmed and the appellant did not pay to entire price of the shop. In these circumstances we are unable to find any fault with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.