1985 PLP 1224 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1224 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1224 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1224 (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: 1985 PLP 1224 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑3‑1981 in L.P.A. No. 1362 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 2(6)‑‑Transfer of evacuee house‑‑Possession at relevant date‑‑Whether undisputed‑‑Plea that occupation of respondent having commenced with permission of petitioner, his possession was not undisputed, repelled‑‑Respondent's occupation of part of house at relevant time being an admitted fact, circumstances in which he entered house (with permission of petitioner) several years before target date, would not make any difference, unless there be an ejectment order passed in favour of petitioner and against respondent before target date‑‑Approach of High Court in circumstances being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 15‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Intra‑Court Appeal in an' urban settlement case was dismissed. The petitioner is a local but allottee of the house in dispute which the respondent is a claimant non‑allottee. There has been a protracted litigation earlier coming up to the High Court. But now the basis of contest between the parties is very simple. The house has not been divided and stands transferred to the respondent claimant as one unit, though the learned Judges in the High Court in the impugned judgment dealt with the question of divisibility. Now it is besides the point. The learned counsel tried to raise an argument showing as if it is a point of law. But on scrutiny, in reality it has been found to be a question of fact. The precise point raised is that the petitioner being an allottee in possession of a part of the house shall have preference over the respondent notwithstanding that the latter is a claimant, because, as contended he is not in "undisputed" occupation of the house in his use. Learned counsel when dealing with the question of "undisputed" occupation explained that some years before 1958 the respondent lost his abode on account of its demolition and he was accommodated by the petitioner in a portion of the house in dispute. And although he was thus in occupation of that portion but the said occupation commenced with the permission of the petitioner. In these circumstances he argued that the finding of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court that the respondent claimant was undisputed occupation of the house, is not correct. We do in agree with him. The occupation of a part of the house by the respondent is admitted from the petitioner site. The fact that he was at the relevant time occupying the house is not disputed. So long as there is not dispute regarding the factual occupation by the respondent the circumstances in which he entered the house (with the Permission of the present petitioner) several years before the target date, will not make any difference. We asked the learned counsel whether there was any ejectment order passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent before the target date the learned counsel showed his ignorance. The approach of the High Court, in the circumstances of the case, is unexceptionable. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. M. I.??? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed