1994 PLP 1963 (SCMR)
CHAUDHRY SAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SAHIB DAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1963 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry |
| Parties | CHAUDHRY SAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SAHIB DAD KHAN 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 1994 PLP 1963 (SCMR)?
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 1994 PLP 1963 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1963 (SCMR) (CHAUDHRY SAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SAHIB DAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 21‑7‑1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 923‑R of 1976). ‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Remand of case to Notified Officer by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court while remanding case had considered factual as well as legal aspects of the case‑‑‑Question of bar of limitation was not raised before High Court, therefore, such question could not be raised for the first time before Supreme Court‑‑‑High Court had ordered remand of case for proper inquiry for both the parties had raised question of fact‑‑‑Order of remand was just and fair‑‑‑No illegality in the order of remand had been pointed out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1992. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 21‑7‑1992.
2. The facts of the case are that two flats were transferred to the respondents No. 1 and
2. The petitioners claimed to be in possession of servant quarters of these flats. They submitted application forms under Settlement Scheme No. VIII for the transfer of these servant quarters. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 22‑6‑1974 transferred these quarters to the petitioners. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenged these orders before the Settlement Commissioner. Their revision petition was dismissed on 8‑9‑1975. The respondents then filed a Constitution petition in the High Court which was accepted by the impugned judgment. The learned High Court remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction to entrust the same to the Notified Officer for disposal of the forms submitted by the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition of the respondents was barred by laches as the petition was filed on 2‑1‑1976 against the order dated 22‑6‑1974. The order does not indicate that this ground was agitated before the High Court or it may be presumed that the High Court has condoned the delay if any.
4. The learned counsel for the caveator submitted that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was passed on 8‑9‑1975. After obtaining the copy of the order, the respondents filed the petition without any delay, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the respondents.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the respondents challenged the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner before the High Court but they did not challenge the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 8‑9‑1975. This contention has no merit. The High Court has considered the factual as well as the legal aspect of the case. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had upheld the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner merged into the order of the revisional authority. The basic order as per order of the High Court was set aside and the case was remanded. There is no illegality in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has remanded the case for proper inquiry. The order is just and fair. The two sides have raised the factual controversy which can only be resolved by the Notified Officer after making an inquiry.
6. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./S‑830/S Petition dismissed.