1982 PLP 400(2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AHMAD-Petitioner Versus WAZIR DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 400(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AHMAD-Petitioner Versus WAZIR DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 400(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 400(2) (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: 1982 PLP 400(2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AHMAD-Petitioner Versus WAZIR DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Salahud din Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition 227/76).
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Petition No. 231/76).
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2 (in Civil Petition No. 231/76).
- Date of hearing : 12th October, 1981.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Salahud din Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Petition No. 231/76).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-12-1975 Lahore High Court Lahore in L. P. As. Nos. 246 and 247 of 1967).
Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider, inter alia, whether while rehearing case merits of all occupants in property should not be considered by same authority in order to avoid conflict of views and also to see whether all of them could not be accommodated in building in dispute when they continued to reside therein for at least last 30 years.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This order will govern Civil Petition No. 227 of 1976 and Civil Petition No. 231 of 1976, as both are directed against a common judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, while disposing of L. P. A. No. 246 of 1967 and L. P. A. No. 247 of 1967. It may here be mentioned that Civil Petition No. 227 of 1976 arises out of L. P. A. No. 247 of 1967 whereas Civil Petition No. 231 of 1976 arises out of the judgment passed in L. P. A. No. 246 of 1967. The petitioner in both the petitions is Muhammad Ahmad. The con testing respondent in L. P. A. No. 246 of 1967 is Rahim Bakhsh, while the contesting respondent in L. P. A. No. 247 of 1967 in Wazir Din. All three of them are occupying parts of a residential building, namely, Property No. 680/38, situated in Bazaz Mohallah, Lahore Cantt. After protracted proceedings before the Settlement authorities, the matter eventually was brought to the Lahore High Court in its writ jurisdiction and ultimate on appeal before a Division Bench in the High Court in L. P. A. proceedings. The learned Bench hearing both the appeals on 17‑12‑1975 partly accepted L. P. A. No. 246 of 1967 directed against the transfer of a part of the property to Rahim Bakhsh and remanded the case to the Officer notified under sec tion 3 of the Evacuee Properties Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 to consider the comparative merits of the petitioner vis‑a‑vis Rahim Bakhsh with regard to the portion originally transferred to the latter and decide as to who was better entitled to its transfer. However, the appeal of the petitioner directed against Wazir Din (through L. P. A. No. 247/67) was rejected. After bearing Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we are inclined to grant leave to appeal both the matters to consider, inter alia, whether while rehearing the case, the merits of all the three occupants in the property should not be considered by the same authority in order to avoid conflict of views and also to see whether all three of them cannot be accommodated in the building when they have beer! residing therein for at least 30 years. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 in each petition. Status quo with regard to the possession to be maintained subject to petitioner's depositing the monthly rent in the Court of the Rent Controller before whom, we understand, proceedings for ejectment are already pending. Leave granted.