1990 PLP 685 (SCMR)
SARFRAZ KHAN CHEEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 685 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SARFRAZ KHAN CHEEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 685 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 685 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 685 (SCMR) (SARFRAZ KHAN CHEEMA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Abdul Razzaq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court; Lahore dated 20‑4‑1983 passed in Civil Revision No.M1 of 1983). ‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)‑‑‑House in dispute was transferred to respondent, being an evacuee property and P T D was issued in his favour by Settlement Authorities‑‑‑Petitioner claiming to have purchased house in dispute from a non‑Muslim to 1947‑‑‑No proof was available to show that sale was confirmed by Custodian of Evacuee Property‑‑‑All the three Courts below had concurrently refused to accept the petitioner as owner of the disputed property‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact were not suffering from any infirmity‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Respondent No.1 in Person (absent).
Judgment & Decree
Sanaullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Respondent No.1 in Person (absent). Raja Abdul Razzaq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2 and
3. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave against the judgment and order of the Lahore High‑Court, dated 20‑4‑1983, whereby his revision petition was dismissed. The house in dispute, being an evacuee property, was transferred to Muhammad Ashraf respondent No.1 by the Settlement Authorities in 1968. Ch. Jalal Khan father of Sarfra‑i. Khan petitioner No.1 herein was in occupation and was ejected through the Rent Controller by respondent No.1. Sarfraz Khan brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the property in dispute is not an evacuee property and the petitioner is the sole owner of it. The suit of the plaintiff/petitioner after contest by the respondent No.1 was dismissed on 21‑6‑1982. Appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge, Gujrat was also dismissed and revision petition before the Lahore High Court also got the same fate. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings of the Courts below. The record of the case will show that the house in dispute was transferred in favour of the respondent No.1 being an evacuee property and a P T D to this was issued in his favour on 1‑4‑1968 by the Settlement Department. As regards the petitioner's claim to have purchased the house in dispute from a non‑Muslim in 1947, there is no proof to show that the sale was confirmed by the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties. All the three Courts below have concurrently refused to accept the petitioner as the owner of the disputed property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at against the petitioner suffers from any infirmity. The result is that this petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. M.A.K./S‑453/S Petition dismissed.