1973 PLP 580 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID~KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1973 PLP 580 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID~KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 580 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 580 (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: 1973 PLP 580 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID~KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 21st June 1973.
- SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. ‑The learned Advocate for the peti tioner has failed to place before us any ground available for review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has contended that this Court has erroneously held in the impugned order that the guest house constituted a single unit although the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated the 10th of March 1965, had held that the house consisted of more than one unit and one of them was in possession of the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review against the judgment of this Court, dated the 15th November 1972, in Civil Petition No. 260 of 1972, from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 17th April 1972, in Writ Petition No. 762/R of 1965). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1‑Review Contention that Court's order holding premises to be a single unit was erroneous in view of settlement authority's finding that premises consisted of more than one unit‑Settlement authority's order, how. ever set aside by High Court in writ proceedings and premises declared to be only one unit in agreement with an earlier order of Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Petition for review, held, of no ,substance and dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. ‑The learned Advocate for the peti tioner has failed to place before us any ground available for review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has contended that this Court has erroneously held in the impugned order that the guest house constituted a single unit although the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated the 10th of March 1965, had held that the house consisted of more than one unit and one of them was in possession of the petitioner. This contention omits to take notice of the fact that the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 10th of December 1959, had held that the guest house which is the subject‑matter of dispute here constituted one residential unit and it was transferred to Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi, the former being a claimant and one of the occupants of the house. Ultimately this decision of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was maintained by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 17th of March 1960, after a spot inspection. The petitioner's belated revision petition from the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was filed before another` Settlement Commissioner and the order of the 10th of March 1965, was passed therein. In this order the Settlement Commissioner had observed that the house consisted of more than one unit The order of the 16th of March 1965, was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court by Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi and it was allowed and the impugned order dated the 10th of March 1965, was set aside, inter alia, on following grounds (1) That the revision petition before the Settlement Com missioner Mr. Abdullah Jan Mirza upon which the impugned order dated the 10th of March 1965, was passed was hopelessly barred by time ; (2) that the present petitioner bad attorned to Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi and therefore the principle of estoppel applied against the petitioner ; (3) that the case had already been adjudicated upon up to the level of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and therefore the Settlement Commissioner could not interfere with that order. The petition has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.