1999 PLP 112 (SCMR)
SHER MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTIES,
| Citation | 1999 PLP 112 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTIES, |
| Primary Law | (a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal). Act (XIV of 1975), (b) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal). Act (XIV of 1975), (b) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 112 (SCMR) (SHER MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTIES,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Amanullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 20-10-1992, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.5,74-R of 1979).
Ss. 2(2) & 3
Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, Chap. 1, para. (1) (c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)
Order of allotment of available urban property in favour of petitioner by Administrator, Residual Properties was reversed by High Court in favour of respondent
Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether High Court was justified in reversing finding of fact recorded by Administrator, Residual Properties, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
Ss.2(2) & 3
Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, Chap. 1, para. l(c)
Available urban property
Property in question was found to be separate available urban property from the one allotted to petitioner
Petitioner had claimed that property in question was part and parcel of property which he had purchased through auction
Administrator of Available Urban Properties had allotted the same to petitioner
High Court on perusal of record found that such property was separate and available urban property and that respondent was entitled to allotment of the same
Impugned judgment of High Court was based on proper appreciation of material produced before it; which did not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference
Appeal being without any substance was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 20-10-1992, passed by the Lahore High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by Natha Masih, respondent No.3 herein, was accepted.
2. The relevant facts are that house bearing No.3/174/2160 and Plot No.2157 were purchased in auction by Sher Muhammad petitioner on 16-4-1974. House No.3/174/2160 was in possession of Ilyas Masih son of Natha Masih. Sher Muhammad filed an ejectment application against Natha Masih respondent and his son Ilyas from Property Nos.2157, 2160/3/174, which was contested by them. Later it came to the notice of the Settlement Authorities that Plot No.3/174/2160-A was a distinct and separate plot from Plot No.3/174/2160 and was still available for transfer. Natha Masih moved an application for its transfer which was accepted and it was transferred to him on 15-6-1978. Feeling aggrieved by the said transfer, Sher Muhammad petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner/Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha, which was accepted on 28-4-1979, and the order dated 15-6-1978 of the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha, transferring the property bearing No.3/174/2160-A to Natha Masih, was cancelled.
3. Challenging the order of Additional Commissioner, Residual Properties, Natha Masih respondent filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court. By judgment, dated 20-10-1992, the learned Judge in Chambers accepted the writ petition, set aside the order dated 28-4-1979 and restored the order dated 15-6-1978 of the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, whereby the Plot bearing No.3/174/2160-A had been transferred to Natha Masih.
4. Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Administrator, Residual Properties, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that material circumstances belying the claim of Natha Masih respondent were ignored by the High Court and no weight was given to the non-mentioning of the disputed plot in CSC-IV register prepared in the year 1970. He further states that survey at Serial @No.37-A had been interpolated which was also not given due consideration by the learned Judge in Chambers.
6. The learned Judge in Chambers observed that Annexure M/l, which formed part of the writ petition, copy of an extract from survey register of the urban properties of the year 1971, showed that Property No.3/174/2160-A measuring 39 x 41 was a distinct and separate property, which existed both at the spot and in the record all the time, and as such the Additional Commissioner/Administrator, Residual Properties Sargodha Division, Sargodha, erred in holding that the said property formed part and parcel of the property purchased by Sher Muhammad in auction. The bid sheet clearly shows that Property* No. 3/174/2160 alone was put to auction on 16-4-1974. The Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha, after getting the site inspected from the Settlement Inspector observed that the property in occupation of Natha Masih bore No.3/174/2160-A. and since it was an evacuee property and had not been transferred to anybody, he ordered its transfer to Natha Masih. The property in dispute is mentioned at Serial No.37-A of the survey list as separate and distinct from Property No.3/174/2160 and as such was rightly transferred to Natha Masih respondent.
7. The impugned judgment of the learned High Court is based on proper appreciation of material produced before it and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal being without any substance is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A./S-84/S Appeal dismissed