1968 PLP 1375 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1375 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1375 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1375 (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: 1968 PLP 1375 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 26th.June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 10‑11‑1967, in Writ Petition No. 840/67). --Sch.‑Finding of Settlement authorities that chaubara was part of shop‑One of fact not amenable to reversal in writ jurisdiction by High Court‑Writ, held, rightly dismissed by High Court‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The disputed chaubara was transferred to the respondent (Sher Muhammad) as a part of his shop after a spot inspection by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who found in terms of the remand order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, that the chaubara was accessable by a stair‑case in the shop, which had been transferred to the respondent Sher Muhammad. The objection that the remand order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated the 24th of February 1962, was without jurisdiction, as the records of the case in the second revision had not been summoned by him before the 13th of January 1962, as required by Ordinance II of 1962 read with Ordinance XIII of 1962, was rightly overruled by the High Court firstly, because the objection was not taken before the Chief Settlement Com missioner by the petitioner, who instead participated in the proceedings after the remand and secondly, as there was no proof that the records of the case had not been summoned before the target date. The findings of 'the relevant authorities that the disputed chaubara is a part of Sher Muhammad's shop, which is one of fact, was not amenable to reversal in writ jurisdiction and the High Court was right in declining relief. We dismiss this petition. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The disputed chaubara was transferred to the respondent (Sher Muhammad) as a part of his shop after a spot inspection by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who found in terms of the remand order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, that the chaubara was accessable by a stair‑case in the shop, which had been transferred to the respondent Sher Muhammad. The objection that the remand order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated the 24th of February 1962, was without jurisdiction, as the records of the case in the second revision had not been summoned by him before the 13th of January 1962, as required by Ordinance II of 1962 read with Ordinance XIII of 1962, was rightly overruled by the High Court firstly, because the objection was not taken before the Chief Settlement Com missioner by the petitioner, who instead participated in the proceedings after the remand and secondly, as there was no proof that the records of the case had not been summoned before the target date. The findings of 'the relevant authorities that the disputed chaubara is a part of Sher Muhammad's shop, which is one of fact, was not amenable to reversal in writ jurisdiction and the High Court was right in declining relief. We dismiss this petition. Leave refused.