1984 PLP 47 (SCMR)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner. Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 47 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner. Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 47 (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 47 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 47 (SCMR) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner. Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ishaq Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1982.
- Ishaq Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 24-1-1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3903 of 1981). -- Arts. 185(3) & 199-Leave to appeal-Order of High Court declining to interfere with findings of fact by Tribunal below-Held, unexceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑1‑1982, whereby his writ petition, filed to challenge the rejection of his plea for transfer of a Deorhi and courtyard by the Administrator, Residual Property, was dismissed
2. The Deorhi and the courtyard in question form part of a composite building, the ground‑floor of which comprises, besides the Deorhi and courtyard, a number of shops. The first‑floor is a residential unit. The shops had been transferred in favour of their respective occupants, including petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad, while the residential portion on the first‑floor to Abdul Ghafoor respondent No. 3, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 4‑4‑1973. Later on the application of Abdul Ghafoor, the Deorhi and the courtyard were transferred in his favour by the Deputy Adminis trator, Residual Property, on 8‑8‑1979. The petitioner applied for impalement in the proceeding before the Deputy Administrator but his application was rejected. He filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Administrator on 28‑9‑1980, against which he had moved the writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner was that the Deorhi and the courtyard had already stood transferred in his favour by the initial transfer order of 4‑4‑1973 and that as no portion of the ground‑floor had remained available, the question of the transfer of the Deorhi and the courtyard in favour of Abdul Ghafoor did not arise. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 4‑4‑1973, by which all the shops had been transferred to their respective occupants speaks, of only "shop having two rooms" having been transferred to the petitioner. There is no mention there that the Deorhi and the courtyard had also been transferred to him. Both the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator, Residual Property, had come to the view that only the shop had been transferred to the petitioner and that he was not in physical possession of or had any link with the Deorhi and the courtyard. With these findings of fact the High Court bad rightly declined to interfere.
4. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition which we accordingly dismiss. S. Q. Leave refused.