1984 PLP 1317 (SCMR)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1317 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1317 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1317 (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: 1984 PLP 1317 (SCMR) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Z . Khalil, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Shaukat Ali Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1983.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Z . Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Respondent No.l.
- Shaukat Ali Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 10-12-1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 594/11 of 1974).
Arts. 185(3) & 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss.2(4), 10 and Sched.--Dispute over transfer of Serai by division--Contentions raised already repelled by High Court--Petition found to be without any merit--Leave to appeal refused. Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Respondent No.l.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Z . Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Shehzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Respondent No.l. Shaukat Ali Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1983. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The dispute relates to transfer of a portion of a large Sarai situate in Block No. 7, Sargodha. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 31‑10‑1960 transferred rooms/ verandahs 55, 56, 58 and 59 on the ground floor to the petitioner and rooms/verandahs 140, 141, 143 and 144 on the first floor to Faqir Muhammad respondent No.2. Not satisfied, the petitioner appealed and succeeded in getting a vertical division of the property, whereby he was transferred the portion of Faqir Muhammad also, whose transfer was cancelled. This was vide order dated 12‑12‑1960. The respondent's revision having failed. he brought Writ Petition N0. 997/11 of 1966, in the result of which the matter was remanded on 22‑11‑1973 for a fresh decision. The learned Settlement Commissioner, on remand, held that "they were originally considered for the transfer of the two rooms each according to their possession but the D.S.C. liberally gave them two more adjoining rooms each as they were not disputed by anybody". He held that the rooms in the occupation of the respondent had been improperly transferred to the petitioner who had no direct access to the first‑floor. He, therefore, by his order dated 6‑3‑1974, set aside the vertical division and restored the original transfer made on 31‑10‑1960. The petitioner agitated the matter before the High Court by a writ petition but having failed now seeks leave to appeal.
2. It is contended, as has been done before the High Court, that the respondent had not filed any form. The contention was repelled by the High Court on the basis of his own admission in ground No. 4 a: the memorandum of appeal to the effect that the respondent had filed an N.C.H. Form. The other contention that P.T.D. already having issued in his favour the Settlement authorities could not re‑open the matter has no force in the circumstance of the case. We find no merit. in this petition and accordingly refuse leave to appeal. S. Q. Leave refused