1968 PLP 1357 (SCMR)
HAKIM ZULQARNAIN AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM AND OTHERS‑-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1357 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAKIM ZULQARNAIN AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM AND OTHERS‑-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1357 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1357 (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: 1968 PLP 1357 (SCMR) (HAKIM ZULQARNAIN AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM AND OTHERS‑-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana 1hlaqbool Ahmad Qadri, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the. High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21st November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 405/R of 1957). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sch , Part 1‑High Court in writ jurisdiction declining to interfere with order of transfer passed by Settlement authorities‑.High Court's order found unexceptionable‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition arises out of a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dismissing the petitioner's Writ Petition for their claim to House No. 9/18 (No. S‑IV‑20‑S‑18), Beadon Road, Lahore, which has been transferred by the Settlement authorities in favour of respondent Kist. Asghari Begum. It appears from the order of the High Court, that during the arguments in the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that petitioner No. 1 (Hakim Zulqarnain) had no case as he had already been transferred a house consisting of one room. The case of the second petitioner (Mst. Safia Begum) alone was pressed which did not find favour with the High Court on the ground that the house was rightly transferred to respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Authorities as she was the only claimant in possession of the house who had filed her C. H. Form. It was noted that no claim form had been filed by the second petitioner (Mst. Safia Begum) and that her husband Hakirn Abdul Majid Saifi, who was a local had agreed to the transfer of the house in dispute in favour of the respondent. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction has rightly declined to interfere with the findings of fact reached by the Settlement Authorities. We dismiss this petition which is without any substance. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition arises out of a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dismissing the petitioner's Writ Petition for their claim to House No. 9/18 (No. S‑IV‑20‑S‑18), Beadon Road, Lahore, which has been transferred by the Settlement authorities in favour of respondent Kist. Asghari Begum. It appears from the order of the High Court, that during the arguments in the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that petitioner No. 1 (Hakim Zulqarnain) had no case as he had already been transferred a house consisting of one room. The case of the second petitioner (Mst. Safia Begum) alone was pressed which did not find favour with the High Court on the ground that the house was rightly transferred to respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Authorities as she was the only claimant in possession of the house who had filed her C. H. Form. It was noted that no claim form had been filed by the second petitioner (Mst. Safia Begum) and that her husband Hakirn Abdul Majid Saifi, who was a local had agreed to the transfer of the house in dispute in favour of the respondent. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction has rightly declined to interfere with the findings of fact reached by the Settlement Authorities. We dismiss this petition which is without any substance. Leave refused.