1985 PLP 576 (SCMR)
ASHIQ ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 576 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ASHIQ ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 576 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 576 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 576 (SCMR) (ASHIQ ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Fjaz .Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Qamar‑ud‑Din Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑9‑1980 in I . C . A . No. 563 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Property in possession of claimants and non‑claimant‑‑Both parties seeking transfer‑‑Deputy Settlement Commissioner treating property indivisible, transferred same to claimants‑‑High Court refused to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with exercise of discretion by Deputy Settlement Commissioner‑‑Order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Our order passed in C.P.No. 1488 of 1980 may be read with this order as both the matters relate to the disposal of the same property. This petition is directed against judgment, dated 27‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby an Intra‑Court Appeal filed by the petitioners arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed. The property was transferred by D.S.C. in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are also the respondents in Civil Petition No.1488 of 1980. It was held to be in their possession through their licensee Mohammad Yasin who according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is also the respondents' uncle. Treating the property as indivisible and finding that the respondents were claimants /applicants for transfer, it was duly transferred to them by the D.S.C. The petitioners challenged this transfer in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Two contentions were raised: one, that the D.S.C. treated the property as indivisible without conscious application of mind to this question; and secondly, that the findings of fact with regard to respondents' possession were not maintainable. A learned Single Judge repelled both the arguments, with cogent reasons. Same pleas were raised before the C.A. Bench but were repelled We agree with the approach of the learned Judges of the High Court or, the question of divisibility. It was within discretionary jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to treat the house as indivisible. The refusal of the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with the exercise of discretion by the concerned D.S.C. in this behalf is unexceptionable. Regarding the findings in favour of the respondents on question of possession we have already rejected the similar plea in Civil Petition No.1488 of 1980. This petition accordingly has no force and is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.