1969 PLP 959 (SCMR)

Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khalil‑ur‑Rahman, Attorney for. Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th October 1967. S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑Syed Ahmad, the petitioner called in question an order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan. The petition was dismissed and he now seeks special leave to appeal. The dispute between the parties centered on the division of a bungalow, portions of which were in occupation of the disputants. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, in revision, finally ordered partition of the bungalow into three separate units and awarded them to their occupants, with a slight modification in so far as he took away one room from Syed Ahmad, and added it into the portion of Mst. Amatur Rahman. Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, on behalf of the petitioner challenged the vires of the decision given by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the ground that this officer had awarded a portion of the building to Mst. Sarwari Begum on grounds which were not within the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. We are not convinced that this is the case. Mst. Sarwari Begum was also a displaced person, though a non‑claimant. The learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner mentioned that she was well connected and an old widow. These were not considerations entirely foreign to the question of her rehabilitation and if, for her benefit, a portion of the Bungalow was separated to form an independent house, the decision could not be said to be outside the jurisdiction of the officer concerned. Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah then contended that his client should have been given the choice to take the portion allotted to Mst. Anmatur Rahman in place of the portion given to him. He based this contention on the fact that one room which was in the possession of his client, had been added to the portion allotted to Mst. Amatur Rahman, so that in the new unit thus formed, both Syed Ahmad and Mst. Amatur Rahman, were in part possession. The question of such an option was however, never raised before the Settlement authorities, and it could not be raised for the first time on this petition for special leave to appeal. We agree with the High Court that the order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was not exception able in law. The petition fails, and is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.