1982 PLP 1163 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1163 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Settlement scheme No. VII‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1163 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement scheme No. VII‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1163 (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: 1982 PLP 1163 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14‑1‑1976 passed in. Review Application No. 22 of 1974 in Writ Petition No. 444‑R of 1967). ‑‑Chapter V, Para. 4‑Person being in possession of evacuee kutcha house on target date of 1st January, 1961, property automatically stood transferred to him free of charge‑‑Abandonment, subsequently if any, of property by such person, held, would not detract from his ' title already acquired.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURESHI, J‑The dispute relates to a katcha evacuee house situate in village Qadirpur Ran, Tahsil and District Multan. It had been in the occupation of and allotted to Sondhey Khan, the predecessor‑in interest of respondents 1 to 5, since long before 1‑I‑1961. In fact his occupation had the basis for the rejection of an application moved against him by one Asghar Ali before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who bad by his order dated 1‑10‑1956 armed the allotment. Some time after 1961, Sondhey Khan left for Bhakkar leaving the house in the occupation of Allah Ditta, etc., locals. The petitioner entered the scene on 1‑6‑1964 with an application seeking ejectment of those locals and for allotment of the house in his favour. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 4‑3‑1966 passed without notice to Sondhey Khan, allotted the house in favour of the petitioner. But the order was set aside on 12‑5‑1967 in Sondhey Khan's revision, by the Settlement Commissioner who found that be bad been in possession of the house from before the crucial date, I.e. 1‑1‑1961, and as such it stood transferred to him by virtue of para. (4) of Chapter 5 of Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 444/R of 1967 and when the same was dismissed on 20‑12‑1973, he moved a review application, i.e. R. A. No. 22/74, but that application, too, was rejected by a detailed order dated 14‑1‑1976. The view taken by the High Court was that the petitioner who had not been in occupation of the property on 1‑1‑1961, had no locus stand either under the old Scheme No. VII or the Revised one, to challenge the order of transfer of the property in favour of Sondhey Khan and that, even otherwise, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 4‑3‑1966 in favour of the petitioner without notice to Sondhey Khan was void. Not satisfied, the petitioner has sought through this petition leave to appeal.
2. The fact that Sondhey Khan had been in possession of the house upto 1‑1‑1961, not being controverted, the case of its transfer was governed by Scheme No. VII. By the aforesaid para. (4) of Chapter 5 of that Scheme, the property stood automatically transferred in favour of its occupant, i.e. Sondhey Khan, free of charge. That being so, an abandonment, if any, of the property by him subsequently, would not detract from his title already acquired in the property. That title was no longer open to interference by the Settlement authorities. There is thus no case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.