1984 PLP 1316 (SCMR)
Ch. ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1316 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1316 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1316 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1316 (SCMR) (Ch. ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1983.
- Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 24-2-1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 544-R of 1974).
Arts. 185(3) & 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss.2 (4) & 10--Transfer of house- Discretionary exercise of power by Settlement Authorities to divide a bungalow--Held, could not be questioned before High Court in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1983. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The dispute concerns the question of divisibility of a bungalow, the Settlement authorities having divided it into two units according to the respective possession of the parties who had been living independently in their respective portions since 1949. The petitioner, who had challenged the division, failed before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and now seeks leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that on general principles the question of divisibility could not be raised in the consti tutional jurisdiction but urges that the decision to divide the bungalow was illegal being in contravention of instruction contained in memorandum dated 22‑10‑1959 (pages 68 and 69 of the old Settlement Manual), para. 2(2)(b) of which directs that: "Bungalow should as far as possible, be transferred as complete units except in very obvious cases where they can be divided into more than one independent and complete bungalow." Even by the above instruction, the Settlement authorities still had the power to divide a bungalow. The exercise of such power being discretionary could not be 'questioned before the High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. S.Q. Leave refused.