1970 PLP 84 (SCMR)
SHABBIR HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 2 OTHER -Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 84 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHABBIR HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 2 OTHER -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 84 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 84 (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: 1970 PLP 84 (SCMR) (SHABBIR HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 2 OTHER -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Wali Muhammad Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing : 5th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th April 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 596 of 1966). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I-Question whether A or B prior allotted or in possession of premises-High Court in writ jurisdiction setting aside order of Settlement Commissioner on such point of such fact which required a finding-Whether High Court was justified in adjudicating question instead of remanding case back to Settlement Authorities-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑In this case, on behalf of Shabbir Hussain, the petitioner, it is urged by Mr. Abdul Majid Khan that the High Court had set' aside the order passed in Review the Settlement Commissioner, on a point of fact on which, if it was necessary to obtain a finding, the case should have been remanded to the Departmental authorities for re‑decision. The question in dispute between the parties was, as to whether the petitioner, or the respondent, was a prior allotted, or in prior possession of the premises, in question. This was certainly a question of fact and there is a good deal of force in the contention raised that such a question should not have been adjudicated upon by the High Court: but should have been left to be decided by the Settlement Authorities. Leave to appeal is granted as prayed. The petitioner will furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 prior to the appeal being heard. In the meantime the petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises. Leave granted.