1984 PLP 58(2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 58(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 58(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 58(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 58(2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Fazal Azeem Hamdani, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 8th March, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 7th April, 1980 in L. P. A. No. 1234/66). Art. 185(3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2 (4)‑Refusal by Settlement Authorities to as to avoid breaking otherwise total unity of property‑Not a fit case for interference by Supreme Court Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The dispute in this case, arising out of transfer of a bungalow under the urban settlement law now related to a unit in that very bungalow which throughout has been treated by all the settlement authorities as an outhouse of the bungalow. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, relying on, what he described as "hesitant observations" made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner to the effect that the location of this outhouse is unusual and that it is complete unit by itself contended that the unit in dispute should have been separately transferred. It is only a case of refusal by the Settlement Authorities to divide the property so as to avoid breaking the otherwise total unity of the bungalow. We do not at this stage consider it a fit case for interference with this refusal which is not without lawful authority. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M. Z. M Petition dismissed.