1990 SCMR 142 (PLP)
SECRETARY, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD‑‑Appellant Versus MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 SCMR 142 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, |
| Parties | SECRETARY, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD‑‑Appellant Versus MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV111 of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 SCMR 142 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV111 of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 SCMR 142 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 SCMR 142 (PLP) (SECRETARY, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD‑‑Appellant Versus MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam. Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order and judgment dated 21‑12‑1972 of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan at Karachi in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 129/69). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Property in question treated to be as evacuee property and transferred to claimant by Settlement Authority‑‑‑Evacuee Trust Property Board sought declaration from Chief Settlement Commissioner to the effect that such property was attached to religious trust and its transfer in favour of claimant was illegal and void but its application was rejected‑‑‑Evacuee Trust Board filed appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed‑‑‑Evacuee Trust Board had relied entirely upon an extract from the Property Register Card, wherein, although property in dispute had been described as a Tikano, yet the origin of the title had been shown as inheritance‑‑‑Neither any evidence was led nor any explanation offered as to how the source of title of the trust property could be described as inheritance‑‑ Settlement Authority was thus justified in making the observation that the case of Evacuee Trust Board was based upon vague and inconclusive record‑‑‑High Court thus properly declined to interfere with that order of Settlement Authority‑‑‑Appeal being without merit was dismissed by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam. Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this appeal by special leave relates to property bearing City Survey No. D/1396 situate at Jumman Shah Jo Pir, Hyderabad. It was treated as evacuee property and transferred to respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Authorities. On 1‑3‑1967, the Evacuee Trust Board, Hyderabad, the appellant, moved an application before Mr. Muhammad Azhar who was vested with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, for a declaration that the said property was attached to a religious trust and its transfer in favour of respondent No. 1 was illegal and void. Mr. Muhammad Azhar dismissed the application with the following observations:‑ "A reference to the Exhs. 2, 3 and 4 filed by the applicant Trust will show that the property in suit is entered as a Tikano, which was inherited by Chandar Singh, Sukhram singh, Bhoj Singh and Bhagwan Singh, sons of Hira Singh, each having ‑/4/‑annas share in it. I find that these entries are the only evidence on which the applicant Trust relies, that these entries are not supported by any other evidence on the record, that they are vague and inconclusive, and it cannot be said that‑ a trust was created and that was for public purposes. As a matter of fact the obvious presumption in this case is that a property which was subject to an inheritance by the heirs was a privately owned property. In view of the above, I hold that there is no evidence on the record to establish the contentions of the applicant trust, and that the delay in filing this application is not justified:" From the order of Mr. Muhammad Azhar, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court but this too was dismissed. The appellant has now come in appeal to this Court.
2. In support of this appeal the appellant has relied before us entirely upon an extract from the Property Register Card. Although in this document, the property has been described as a Tikano but the origin of the title has been shown as inheritance. Neither any evidence was led nor any explanation offered how the source of title of the Trust Property could be described as inheritance. In the circumstances, Mr. Muhammad Azhar was justified in making the observation that the case of the appellant was based upon vague and inconclusive record. The High Court therefore very properly declined to interfere with his order. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./S‑457/S Appeal dismissed.