1968 SCMR 191 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 13 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATIONCOMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 191 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 13 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATIONCOMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 191 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 191 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 191 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 13 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATIONCOMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by lqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th June 1967, in Writ Petition No. 2270/R of 1962). (a) Appeal to Supreme Court-New plea-Point not raised below-Cannot be pressed before Supreme Court in appeal. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3)-No solid grounds for grant of leave made out-Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case the grievance sought to be ventilated by the petitioners through Mr. Muhammad Anwar i Butter, their Counsel, is that the Chief Settlement and Rehabili- tation Commissioner had travelled beyond the scope of the 4i remand order passed by the High Court earlier by which his previous order had been quashed and he had been directed to re determine the question whether village Chandrami was an urban or a rural area. It is contended that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had not only answered the question in the sense that Chandrami was urban area but he had gone further and held that the allotments of the respondents in consequence were good allotments as they were urban claim holders. The High Court in writ jurisdiction refused to interfere with this later order and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Butter suggests that as the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the previous order of remand passed by the High Court, the learned Judges were in error in not setting aside this order. We are not convinced that this is the correct position. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner has ample powers to pass any orders that he deemed fit in respect of the allotments of the respondents. He could even exercise sun motu revisional powers. It cannot be said therefore, that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order that he did. The further complaint made on behalf of the petitioners is that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had given no consideration to the question whether the petitioners, in spite of their claim being rural in character, could also retain allotment in the urban area, in view of certain instructions issued by the Government. But this demand, it is conceded, was never made before the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner so that he had no occasion to consider this question at all. If so advised, the petitioners can even now agitate the matter before the Chief Settlement Commissioner if the remedy be open to them under the Government's orders. Without having been raised before the departmental authorities, A the point cannot be pressed in this Court for the first time. No solid grounds appears for grant of special leave to appeal, in this case and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.