1970 PLP 490 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE
| Citation | 1970 PLP 490 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 490 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 490 (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 490 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iqbal Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by K. A. Ghani, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th January 1970
- Iqbal Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by K. A. Ghani, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 13th March 1969, in Petition No. 146 of 1967). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sched., Part I read with Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Divisibility of house-Order of Settlement Authorities cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑Mr. Iqbal Qazi concedes that c the divisibility of the property in dispute was not open to question before the High Court in writ jurisdiction. He, how ever, contends that in allotting the upper floor to the petitioners the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not take into considera tion the material circumstances that the petitioners were allottees and in prior occupation of the ground floor. Once it is conceded and rightly so that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the division of the property, we fail to see how the mode of partition can be the subject‑matter of a judicial review under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petitioners were in occupation of only one room on the ground floor. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in the circumstances of the case exercised his discretion properly in transferring to the petitioners the upper floor and giving the ground floor to the respondents at Nos. 6 to
8. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.