1975 PLP 213 (SCMR)
MOHAMMAD ILYAS QURESHI-Petitioner Versus Khan MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 213 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --Art. 98-Writ jurisdiction--Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order having become final with dismissal of review petition filed by petitioner, no second review petition lay, nor could order be reviewed 3J years later-No explanation for delay furnished either-Chief Settlement Commissioner's order setting aside Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, passed on a miscellaneous petition, held, appropriately set aside by High Court in circumstances -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 21 as amended by Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 6. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD ILYAS QURESHI-Petitioner Versus Khan MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 213 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 213 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --Art. 98-Writ jurisdiction--Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order having become final with dismissal of review petition filed by petitioner, no second review petition lay, nor could order be reviewed 3J years later-No explanation for delay furnished either-Chief Settlement Commissioner's order setting aside Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, passed on a miscellaneous petition, held, appropriately set aside by High Court in circumstances -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 21 as amended by Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 6. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 213 (SCMR) (MOHAMMAD ILYAS QURESHI-Petitioner Versus Khan MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja M. Tufail. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 21st October 1974.
- Khawaja M. Tufail. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 15th January 1974, in Writ Petition No. 626/R of 1966). --Art. 98-Writ jurisdiction--Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order having become final with dismissal of review petition filed by petitioner, no second review petition lay, nor could order be reviewed 3J years later-No explanation for delay furnished either-Chief Settlement Commissioner's order setting aside Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, passed on a miscellaneous petition, held, appropriately set aside by High Court in circumstances -Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 21 [as amended by Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 6].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB, ALI J.‑Property No. 44/B to 44/17, Hastings Street, Multan Cantt. consists of shops and a residential unit. The petitioner is transferee of one of the shops and the residential unit at its back. The respondents acre transferees of the remaining four shops. After the transfers had been completed the respondents moved the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for amendment of the P. T. O., issued in favour of the petitioner so as to exclude from it the back portion of the shops. The Additional Settlement Commissioner granted permission to review the transfer in favour of all the parties and decide afresh whether the portion at the back of the shops was part of the residential unit or formed part of the shops. The petitioner did not move against the order of remand. On 5‑7‑1960 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed fresh orders of transfer and thereby excluded the back portion of the shops from the residential unit transferred to the petitioner. An appeal and further revision petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner on 14‑9‑1960 and 1‑8‑1961 respectively. On 27‑3‑1965 the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner impugning the orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petition was on its face incompetent, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 4‑8‑1965 allowed it and gave the back portion of all the five shops to the petitioner as part of his residential unit. On a writ petition filed by respondents 2, 3 and 4 the High Court has set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority from which the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal. Khawaja Mohammad Tufail, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any error in the orders passed by the Settlement authorities on remand of this case. The order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 5‑7‑1960 became final with the dismissal of the review petition preferred by the petitioner on 1‑8‑1961. No second review petition lay from the order of the Settlement Commissioner. Nor was it a fit case for exercise of such a jurisdiction 31 years later. No explanation for the delay was forthcoming. On these facts the High Court has appropriately set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority. The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.