1990SCMR210 (PLP)
RAB NAWAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus HAKEEM INAMULLAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR210 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | RAB NAWAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus HAKEEM INAMULLAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. V1I‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR210 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. V1I‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR210 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR210 (PLP) (RAB NAWAZ KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus HAKEEM INAMULLAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th June 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑10‑1985, passed in Writ Petition No.1350/R of 1985). ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider controversy with regard to the possession involved in the case particularly in the light of report of Tehsildar.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th June 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, passed in Writ Petition No.1350‑R of 1985. Rab Nawaz Khan petitioner herein after his retirement from the police was accommodated by Dr. Inamullah Khan and his brother to live in house in dispute as a licensee as he had no other house to live. On resistance to vacate the house by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the police where he admitted before the police authorities that he was installed in the house by the owner Dr. Inamullah and his brother and he promised to vacate the house within three months. Notwithstanding this position the petitioner made an application to the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the house in dispute in his name. The respondent No.l and his brother had also made an application for the transfer of the house under Settlement Scheme No.VI1 promulgated in August, 1961. The claim of the petitioner was rejected and that of the respondent No.l and his brother was considered and the property in dispute was transferred to them vide order dated 1‑3‑1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was accepted vide his order dated 31‑7‑1975. Respondent No.l and his brother thereafter went in revision before the Addl. Commissioner (C) who vide his order dated 13‑8‑1975 rejected the same on the ground that in view of the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, the appeal‑cum‑revision was not maintainable. Dr. Inamullah then filed a writ petition before the High Court and a learned Single Judge while allowing the petition declared the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority. The controversy with regard to the possession involved in this case, particularly in the light of the report of Tehsildar dated 6‑10‑1973, is worth consideration of this Court. Hence under the circumstances, leave to appeal is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,
000. Appeal is to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further documents, if any. Status quo is to be maintained. M.A.K./R‑114/S Leave granted.