1976 PLP 19 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 19 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman. J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 19 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 19 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 19 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Haider Kidwai, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of the judgment of this Court, dated the 15th April 1966, in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1965). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑ Sched. I‑Transfer of evacuee property‑Locus standi‑Person losing his case for transfer of property in Settlement Department-- Has too locus standi to assert any rights in respect of such property Mere desire to bid for a property at an auction‑Does not carry a vested right to bring such property to auction. Data of hearing : 17th June 1966.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑By this petition, review is sought only of that part of this Court's judgment of the 15th April 1966, where it is said that transfer of the "excess area" included in the compound of an evacuee house to the transferee of that house was in the discretion of the Settlement Authorities, and there had been no illegality in the exercise of that discretion. It was said also that after the present petitioner's claim to transfer of the property in which he occupied only an out‑house, had been rejected, he had no locus stands to challenge the transfer of the 'excess area' to the transferee. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad's contention is that under certain instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, "excess area" beyond a prescribed minimum should be sold by auction, and he adds that his client, who has been living in an out‑house on the estate for many year‑3, wishes to bid at such an auction. The mere desire to bid for a property at an auction does not carry a vested right to bring such property to auction. It is difficult to suppose that for property situated in a very central part of Lahore Civil Lines, where prices rule very high, a person who has been content to occupy an out‑house of the property for many years can have the means, and therefore a bona fide desire, to bid at an auction. It may be safely inferred that the effort is being made on behalf of another or others. The point of locus stands thus gains added weight. It is clear that the petitioner, whose case for transfer of the whole or part of the property, in Settlement, has been finally rejected, has no locus standi to assert any rights in respect thereof. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad refers us to certain instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which were never mentioned at the bearing of the appeal. Up to that stage, the case of the petitioner was based on a claim to transfer of the whole or part of the property if indeed there has been violation of any binding direction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the matter may be moved before him in some competent form, irrespective of anything said in our order of the 15th April 1966. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.