1989 PLP 1401 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT ALI and others Petitioners Versus RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS, RAHWALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1401 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI and others Petitioners Versus RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS, RAHWALI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. VII |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1401 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. VII as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1401 (SCMR)?
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: 1989 PLP 1401 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT ALI and others Petitioners Versus RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS, RAHWALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court Mian Muhammad Rafique, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inavat Hussain, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 8‑10‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.P. No.1765/R /74, 12‑R/75, 770/R/75, 771/R/75, 772/R/75, 776; R/75, 775/R/75, 777/R/75 and 774/R/75). ‑‑‑Para.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Employees of establishment provided with accommodation in its premises‑‑Such accommodation allotted to petitioners under Scheme No.VII‑‑High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction declared orders of such allotment to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and remanded the case to Authority‑‑No case for interference with such order of High Court was made out‑‑Question for consideration was whether the properties transferred to the petitioners were part of the establishment premises which already stood sold to the latter‑‑That being a question of fact, High Court had noticed that none of the Settlement Authorities had taken into account the various documents which the establishment wanted to produce in support of its claim‑‑High Court's reference to Settlement Authority for a fresh decision was thus fully justified‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These petitions for special leave to appeal arise in the following circumstances. The Rahwali Sugar Mills in Gujranwala Cantonment was evacuee property. It was purchased by the West Pakistan Government at a price determined by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. The Mills covered an area of 249 kanals and 12 marlas. According to the Mills, the petitioners were its employees and had been provided with accommodation in its premises. In 1967, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred the accommodation allotted by the Mills to the petitioners under Scheme No.VlI. The Mills challenged the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner in appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but without any success. It then filed writ petitions in the High Court to challenge the legality of the transfers made in favour of the petitioners. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petitions and declared the orders of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, it remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with a direction to AS, the case to any Settlement Commissioner to consider the application for transfer of the petitioners. From the order of the High Court, the petitioners seek leave to appeal.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not satisfied that any case for interference with the order of the High Court has been made out. The question for consideration is whether the properties transferred to the petitioners were part of the Mills premises which already stood sold to the lamer. This is a question of fact and the High Court has noticed that neither the Assistant Settlement Commissioner nor the Deputy Settlement commissioner took into account the various documents which the Mills wanted to produce in support of its claim. In the circumstances, reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision was fully justified. These petitions are dismissed. However, the officer to whom the cases are entrusted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner should endeavour to dispose them of expeditiously. A.A./S‑264/S Petitions dismissed.