1975 PLP 52 (SCMR)
Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Syed MUHAMMAD NAQVI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 52 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Syed MUHAMMAD NAQVI AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 52 (SCMR)?
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 1975 PLP 52 (SCMR)?
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: 1975 PLP 52 (SCMR) (Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Syed MUHAMMAD NAQVI AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 4th September 1974.
- Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan. Karachi, dated the 4th June 1974, in Constitution Petition No. 473 of 1972). - Sched. I, para. 1-Transfer of house-Deputy Settlement Com missioner rejecting N. C. H. forms for default of appearance of applicant-Additional Settlement Commissioner finding petitioner to have omitted to put in appearance in spite of service of notices yet setting aside Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order on ground of failure to intimate order of rejection of N. C. H. form to petitioner Order rejecting N. C. H. form if legally correct, held, failure to in timate same could not affect validity of order-Property having been auctioned and purchased by respondent, purchaser could not be deprived of his property rights in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, J.‑The petitioners filed N. C. H. forms for transfer of portions of Property No. N. P. 13/94 situated in Bhagnari Street, Juna Market, Karachi, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner r‑ rejected the forms on the finding that the house in question was not entered in the register of evacuee properties. On appeal by the petitioners the Additional Settlement Commissioner held the property to be evacuee and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal of the petitioners' N. C. H. forms on merits. It appears that in spite of repeated notices the petitioners did not put in appearance before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner whereupon the property in question was put to auction and purchased by respondent No.
1. The petitioners thereupon filed a belated appeal which was allowed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, but on further revision by the auction‑purchaser the Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and upheld the rejection of the petitioners' N. C. H. forms by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the High Court calling in question the order of the Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority. The grounds raised in the petition did not find favour with a learned Judge who agreed with the Settlement Commissioner that the petitioners were in default and that the appeal filed by them before the Additional Settlement Commissioner was barred by time. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court precisely on the same grounds on which the writ petition in the High Court was made. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find no error in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by which he rejected the petitioners' N. C. H. forms for default of appearance. The Additional Settlement Commissioner did find that notices were served on the petitioners and that they had omitted to putt in appearance on two occasions, but he set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the erroneous ground that intimation of the order was not given to the petitioners. If the order rejecting the N. C. H, forms was legally correct, the failure to send intimation to the petitioners of that order had no impact on the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Settlement commissioner. It had also to be borne in mind that due to the default of the petitioners the property was put to auction and purchased by respondent No.
1. The latter could not, therefore, be deprived of his property rights by showing indulgence to the petitioners.' We accordingly see no reason to interfere with dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition by the High Court and refuse leave to appeal. Petition dismissed.