1970 PLP 27 (SCMR)
Mst. IQBAL BEGUM-Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1970 PLP 27 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. IQBAL BEGUM-Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 27 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 27 (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: 1970 PLP 27 (SCMR) (Mst. IQBAL BEGUM-Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme. Court (Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khalil-ur-Rahman, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th October 1967.
- Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme. Court (Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khalil‑ur‑Rahman, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1631 /R of 1964). 'Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), First Sched., Part I-Boundaries of two houses Clearly delineated by Settlement Authorities and-finding based on evidence-Mailer cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme. Court (Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khalil‑ur‑Rahman, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th October 1967. CORNELIUS, C. J.‑This petition .has ;reference to a case in Settlement where the final order is one demarcating the boundaries of a house in Lahore numbered S‑1‑72‑S‑8, which had been transferred to the petitioner Mst. Iqbal Begum, and thus distinguishing it from an adjoining property S‑1‑91‑S‑13, which had been transferred to the respondent Mst. Shahnaz Begum. After the transfer, Mst. Iqbal Begum demanded transfer to herself of the property S‑1‑91‑S‑13 claiming that it was part of property S‑1‑72‑S‑8: Mst. Shahnaz Begum contended that a part of property S‑1‑91‑S‑13 had been wrongly included in the pro perty given to Mst. Iqbal Begum as S‑1‑72-S‑
8. The Settlement authorities settled the matter by showing in green lines, on a plan of the two adjacent houses, the boundaries of S‑1‑72‑S‑
8. Against this order .Mst. Iqbal Begum moved a revision before the Settlement, Commissioner, who held that the two houses were distinct arid different. It does not appear to have been contended before him that the green lines referred to above contained less than the true area of property S‑1‑72‑S‑
8. A writ moved against this order by Mst. Iqbal Begum having been refused by the High Court, she seeks leave to appeal further. It is not open to the Courts to interfere with the demarcation of the two houses, or with the finding, based on examination of the evidence that there are in fact two distinct houses. The boundaries of the property transferred to Mst. Iqbal Begum have been delineated, and against this, she seems to have no grievance. She obviously cannot have two houses. The High Court has taken steps to safeguard against her being asked to pay for more than the property which stands transferred to her by the last order in Settlement. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.