1968 PLP (2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hameeduddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M, B. Mesawa, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the u November 1967, in Petition No. 610 of 1964). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sch., para. 13 read with Settlemeni Scheme No. VI, Para. 1 (3)-Person raising "permanent construction on part of plot (held by Settlement Authorities to be covering less than 114 of entire plot)-Contention that such persons claim cannot be rejected in toto in light of decision in P L D 1965 S C 618 which entitled him to get at least portion over which permanent building constructed-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider contention. Mahmooda Tahsin v. Ijaz Hussain Shah, P L D 1965 S C 618 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, .J.--The dispute in this, case is with respect to Plot No, A, M. 241, Saddar, Karachi. The petitioner, Muhammad Ishaq, sought its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI on the ground, that he had constructed a permanent building on the said plot covering more than 1/4th of its area. Settlement authorities being of the opinion that the 'major portion of the construction raised on the plot was of a temporary nature and that the area of construction which could be treated as permanent building, was far less than 1/4th of the entire plot, rejected his claim and ordered auction of the plot. As no one came forward to offer a bid on the date fixed for auction, it was sold to respondent No. 4, Saeeda Khatoon, by private negotiation. The petitioner moved a writ in the High Court challenging legal it of the order of the Settlement Authority, hut the same was dismissed. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. It was contended that according to the findings of the Settlement Authorities a portion of the construction could be regarded as a permanent building and as such in the light of the decision of this Court in Mabmooda Tahsin v. ljaz Hussain Shah (P L D 1965 S C 618) the petitioner would be entitled to get at least that portion of the plot over which he had constructed a permanent building. The learned Judges of the High Court have not at all considered the above decision while rejecting the claim of the , petitioner. The above contention merits consideration and we accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed, Security
Rs. 1,
000. Status quo to be maintained pending disposal of this appeal. Petition accepted.