1985 PLP 575 (SCMR)
DEWAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 575 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | DEWAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 575 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 575 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 575 (SCMR) (DEWAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioner.
- Qamar‑ud‑Din Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Order of Lahore High Court, dated 27‑9‑1980 in I. C . A . N0. 562 of 1979) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958). S.10‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Building indivisible and in possession of claimants and non‑claimant‑‑Both parties seeking transfer‑‑Former given preference over latter‑‑Finding of fact by Settlement authorities based on un rebutted documentary evidence, not open to interference‑‑Petitioner declined relief in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 27‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby an Intra‑Court Appeal arising out of an urban settlement case filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. After two rounds of litigation the property in dispute was transferred to respondents Nos 2 and 3 on the ground that although the petitioner a non‑claimant is also in possession of a part of the property, the respondents being claimants would have preference over him and the building being indivisible, it was transferred to the said two respondents. Two questions of fact were raised before the High Court; One, that the respondents had not submitted any application for transfer and secondly that they were not in possession of any part of the property. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner who dealt with the case after a remand order by the High Court gave findings of fact against the petitioner on both the points. Regarding the submission of the forms reliance was placed on a certificate/ receipt issued by the office of the concerned D.S.C. showing that the respondent had applied for transfer and with regard to possession it was held that the respondents were in possession of a part of the property through one Muhammad Yasin, their licensee. Learned counsel for the petitioner had explained that this Mohammad Yasin is an uncle of the respondents. The learned Judges in the High Court‑‑ in the Single and in the Division Benches‑‑ upheld the findings of fact by the D.S.C. and declined relief to the petitioner in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Learned counsel has tried to show that the findings of fact by the D.S.C. are not based on any sound material. The learned Single Judge in the High Court repelled similar contention by observing that the petitioner failed to produce any proof to show that the certificate/ receipt regarding the application for transfer submitted by the respondent was not genuine. We also asked the learned counsel to show any material to prove otherwise; but he failed to do so. Similarly there is nothing to rebut the finding that the respondents were in possession of the property in dispute through their licensee Muhammad Yasin who also happened to be their uncle. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.