1982 PLP 823 (SCMR)
SAGHIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KHAN MUQARRAB KHAN, SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF CHIEF SETTLT. COMMR. ETC.)- Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 823 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAGHIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KHAN MUQARRAB KHAN, SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF CHIEF SETTLT. COMMR. ETC.)- Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 823 (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 1982 PLP 823 (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: 1982 PLP 823 (SCMR) (SAGHIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KHAN MUQARRAB KHAN, SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF CHIEF SETTLT. COMMR. ETC.)- Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Gulnawaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehdi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2-7.
- Fazle Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 4th November, 1981.
- Malik Gulnawaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehdi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2‑7.
- Fazle Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-5-1977 of the Lahore High Court; Lahore in Settlement Appeal No. 1 of 1969). -- Sched.-Transfer of property-Petitioners unsuccessfully trying to get property transferred against their verified claims-Held, estopped to turn round and assert that such property was evacuee trust property.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 10‑7‑1976 dismissing the Settlement Appeal (No. 1 of 1969) directed against the order dated 30‑9‑1968 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioners are occupants of a part of the property bearing No. E/459‑A, Shahalam Gate, Lahore, as an evacuee trust property being owned by R. B. Lachman Dass Free Hospital. The portion in dispute was transferred to respondents 3‑7 as an evacuee property. The petitioners are tenants of this property and assert that the property was evacuee trust property and was not therefore transferable to the respondents. The High Court in its impugned order has held that the petitioners being tenants of the property have no locus standi to initiate the proceedings for the purpose of declaring the property as evacuee trust property. It was further observed that the petitioners in the first instance had themselves tried to get the property transferred against their verified claims by submitting applications for transfer, but were unsuccessful and had now turned round and started to assert that it was evacuee trust property. In view of their conduct they were estopped from doing so. Both Mr. Gulzar Hassan for the petitioners and Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain for the Evacuee Trust Board attempted to argue that there was massive documentary evidence to show that the property was evacuee trust property and, therefore, the High Court has erred in refusing to interfere. We do not agree. The High Court was right in holding that the petitioners had no locus standi to prefer the appeal which was liable to be dismissed on that short ground. But so far as the merits are concerned we would not like to express any opinion on the point. 'Since no ground for interference with the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of locus standi is made out, this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.