1968 SCMR 186 (PLP)
TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. FATEMA AND 6 OTHERs-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 186 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. FATEMA AND 6 OTHERs-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 186 (PLP)?
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 1968 SCMR 186 (PLP)?
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 SCMR 186 (PLP) (TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus Mst. FATEMA AND 6 OTHERs-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Razzak Raja, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of the judgment and order of this Court dated the 11th October 1957, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 334 of 1967).
S. 2 (4) proviso read with S. 31-Order dividing property passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner-Amenable to appeal and revision after amendment of law. Abdul Majid v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1967 S C 437 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-By this petition Taj Muhammad seeks review of an order passed by a Bench of this Court, dated the 1 1 th October 1967, by which a petition for special leave to appeal on behalf of the petitioner, from an order passed by the High Court of West Pakistan, was dismissed. The dispute between the parties relates to the residential portion of premises No. 170/2, Ward No. 9, Lyallpur. The petitioner was in possession of a portion of this residential part of the building, but the major portion was in the possession of one Moula Bakhsh. The entire residential portion was trans ferred to Moula Bakhsh, by the Additional Settlement Commis sioner, on appeal from an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had divided the residential part between the parties. The petitioner failed in revision before the Settlement Commissioner and also in the High Court where he challenged the orders of the departmental authorities by a petition for a writ. As mentioned above, his petition for special lave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court. Mr. M. S. Baqir, on behalf of the petitioner, raised the contention that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dividing the property, was not open to appeal or revision because he passed the order as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In a recent decision of ofA this Court it has been held that in the face of an amendment or- the relevant law, such orders were now amenable to appeal and revision, like any other orders passed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958. The point has, therefore, no substance. It was next contended that the petitioner, in any event, was earlier in possession than the respondent, even if he is not an allottee, as has been held by the departmental authorities and was, therefore, entitled to preference. There is no foundation for this argument also in the facts of the case. The order of the Settlement Commissioner at page 45 of the original petition for special leave to appeal shows that both the parties had been in possession from the same date. The petition fails as no ground has been made out for review of his Court's order and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.