P L D 1965 (W (PLP)
Qazi KHALIL AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND
| Citation | P L D 1965 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Qazi KHALIL AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
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: P L D 1965 (W (PLP) (Qazi KHALIL AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Farrukh Amin for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Sch., Part. I and S. 16 read with Settlement Scheme No. 1, Ch. II, paras. 4 & 6‑Application to file belated CH Form-- House already transferred‑Application, held, rightly rejected.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The appellant has produced two envelopes of the brief maintained by Mirza Iqbal who had originally filed the writ petition on his behalf. On one of them it is noted that the writ petition was returned for correction on the 29th of July 1963 and on the other that the writ petition had been re‑filed and fixed in Motion for the 1st of August 1963. In fact, the petition had been dismissed on the 10th of July 1963. In the circumstances we would have condoned the delay but on merits there is no force in the appeal.
2. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Altaf Hussain v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1965 S C 68) which actually goes against the appellant. At page 82 of the report their Lordships in dealing with the rejection of the form filed by the son and the wife of Altaf Hussain have observed as follows: "The CH Form submitted by the second and third appellants was apparently intended as‑a second string to their bow if the first appellant's second CH Form was not considered valid. It was admitted‑only conditionally ‑and was rejected, it seems rightly, when it was found that the house had already been transferred." In the present case the appellant had filed the CH Form on' the 14th of January 1960, while the house in dispute had already been transferred to the respondent No.
2. Copy of the Form has not been filed and it may be' legitimately inferred that the same condition as in the case of Altaf Hussain's son and wife had beets imposed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner while allowing the application to file his belated CH Form. The house having been already transferred, the application form was therefore rightly rejected and on this premises no fault can be found with the impugned orders of Settlement Authorites. Dismissed. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.