1989SCMR793 (PLP)
ABDUL GHANI — Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR793 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI — Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR793 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR793 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR793 (PLP) (ABDUL GHANI — Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 1988.
- Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 31-1-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in L.P.A. No.1108/66).
S.2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Allotment of shop to respondent assailed unsuccessfully by petitioner in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--Order impugned--Where order of Settlement Commissioner whereby disputed shop was allotted to respondent, was eminently just and fair, interference in such order was not called for--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to a composite property which had two shops on the ground‑floor and a 'chobara' on the first‑floor. One of the shops was with the petitioner and the other was in the occupation of Abdul Aziz, respondent No.2. The petitioner was a claimant while Abdul Aziz was a non‑claimant. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire property to the petitioner. Abdul Aziz filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that the shop in possession of Abdul Aziz could conveniently be transferred to him. He made an order accordingly. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. He then filed a Letters Patent Appeal which too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was eminently just and fair. We A therefore, do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused. A.A./A‑423/S. Leave to appeal refused.