SCMR 1970

1970 PLP 48 (SCMR)

NAWAB KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HAJRA BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 308 of 1967, decided on 13th October 1967.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1970 PLP 48 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties NAWAB KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HAJRA BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 48 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 48 (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: 1970 PLP 48 (SCMR) (NAWAB KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. HAJRA BEGUM AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 13th October 1967.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st June 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 667 of 1966). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I-Question of divisibility of house Within exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities-High Court, held, right in declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The dispute is in relation to the transfer of an evacuee house under the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The Settlement authorities in exercise of the power conferred by section 2 of the Act divided the house and transferred a portion to Nawab Khan, petitioner, and the rest of the house to Mst. Hajran Begum, respondent, as independent residential units. Dissatisfied the petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction contending inter alia that the house was in fact indivisible and. the Settlement authorities had failed to apply their mind to this question. The contention was contrary to the record. In grounds Nos. 8 & 9 of the revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner the petitioner had urged "

8. That the learned D. S. C. vide his order dated 1st April 1961, decided the case, on remand, afresh on merits, after hearing the parties and seeing the spot personally. Con sequent to the judgment of D. S. C., the house was divided and as such the portion from ground floor marked "A" in the Exh. was given to Nawab Khan, the petitioner and the portion from the ground floor marked "B" in the Exh. was given to Mst. Hajran Begum, the respondent. As regards the first floor of the house, the learned D. S. C. agreed to the division already made by virtue of "the occupa tion of the contestants". The learned D. S. C. in his judgment specifically opined that no other division is possible except that which he had made.

9. That the respondent, Mst. Hajran Begum, went in appeal to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, who vide his order dated 27th January 1962, set aside the order of learned D. S. C. and disturbed the division with out rhyme and reason, hence this revision petition." The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on examining these grounds concluded that he found no ground to differ from the findings of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and observed:‑ "The claimant should be given preference over a non‑claimant especially when the former has asked for the whole property while the non‑claimant has only asked for the portion in his possession and which is being transferred to him. Under the circumstances the petition of Mst. Hajran Begum is accepted to the extent that only the portions ordered by the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, will be transferred to her. The petition of Nawab Khan is rejected." The contention that the Settlement authorities had not applied their minds to the question of divisibility of the house was thus factually incorrect. In seeking special leave to appeal the same ground is urged by the petitioner's counsel. He conceded that the question of divisibility was not open to review by the High Court in writ Jurisdiction, but attempted to argue that the house was indivisible. The question of divisibility of the house being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities the High Court was right in declining to interfere with the apportionment of the house. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Leave refused.