1975 PLP 467 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH BUTT — Appellant Versus Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 467 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH BUTT — Appellant Versus Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 467 (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 1975 PLP 467 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 467 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH BUTT — Appellant Versus Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate- on-Record (Absent) for appellant.
- Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 1st April 1975.
- Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record (Absent) for appellant.
- Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 8th October 1965, in W. F. No. 677/R of 1961).
Sched., Part I
Parties, inter-related, living in separate portions two decades coming to a settlement in Court, and agreeing to retain portions already in their respective occupation-Appeal disposed of in terns of agreement-Fresh P. L. D's to issue in accordance with Settlement reached-Constitution of Pakistan (1971), Art 185(3). Respondent No. 2: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.
House No. S‑VI‑2-S-33, Rabbani Road Old Anarkali, Lahore, was an evacuee property which was vertically divided by the Settlement Authorities for purposes of transfer and a portion was given to one Abdul Hamid who is nut a party to this litigation. The dispute is confined to the other half of the premises of which the upper portion is in occupation of the appellant Muhammad Abdullah Butt non-claimant allottee and the ground‑floor is in occupation of the legal heirs of Mst. Iqbal Begum respondent a claimant non‑allottee who has since died.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settle ment Commissioner excluded Mst. Iqbal Begun on the ground that although a claimant she was merely a licensee under the allottee Muhammad Abdullah appellant. Mst. Iqbal Begum succeeded in revision before the Settlement Commissioner who excluded Mr. Butt. The latter's second revision was, however, accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who reversed a cite decision and in turn excluded Mat. Iqbal Begum. Her writ petition was accepted by the High Court, vide order dated 5‑10‑1965. The LPA filers by Muhammad Abdullah was dismissed on 9-2‑1966. Leave was, however granted to him vide this Court's order dated 11‑10‑1966 to consider the contention that Mst. Iqbal Begum being in occupation of only a garage could riot be deemed to be in possession and as such was not entitled to the transfer of the disputed portion of the premises.
3. Having been taken through the record, we cued that the contention raised before this Court in support of the petition for leave to appeal that Mst. Iqbal begum was in occupation of only tire garage is factually incorrect. In fact it was conceded by the appellant himself that she was in possession of the ground‑floor of the disputed portion of the house comprising three rooms and a garage which also appears to have been used for residential, purposes.
4. The parties, wino are related inter se and have been living in two separate and independent portions for the last two decades have come to a settlement in Court. They have agreed to retain the portions already in their respective occupation. The appeal is disposed of in accordance with the above agreement between the parties. We may, however, add that fresh P. T. Ds. will be issued to them by the D. S. C. in accordance with the settlement reached between them. Order accordingly