1976 PLP 68 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 68 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Appeal to Supreme Court‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 68 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal to Supreme Court‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 68 (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: 1976 PLP 68 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA‑Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th July 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Court whilst dispensing of appeal observing "some remarks would be included on this point", but due to oversight it was not done Supreme Court on miscellaneous application by party made necessary observations.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th July 1975. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This application prays for a clarification of the cider made by this Court on the 25th of October 1973, whereby Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1969 filed by the petitioner, Allah Ditta, in respect of the transfer of an evacuee house situate in Krishna Gali No. 2, Gawalmandi, Lahore, was dismissed. The judgment is reported as Allah Ditta v. Haji Jan Muhammad (P L D 1974 S C 113). The petitioner had obtained the transfer of that house in the capacity of an informant, and had paid its evaluation price by purchasing compensation books from other claimants. Now that his entitlement to retain the house has been finally negatived, he is anxious to obtain cash compensation in lieu of the compensation books deposited by him with the Settlement Department. It is submitted that at the time of the dismissal of the appeal an observation was made by the Court that some remarks would be included in the judgment on this point, but unfortunately, this has not been done due to an oversight. By means of the present application it is prayed that an observation or direction in this behalf may be made so as to enable the petitioner to obtain the said compensation. We have perused the notes taken by us at the time of the hearing of the petitioner's appeal, and we find that it was indeed Intended to make some observations of the kind mentioned in the present application. It appears that by means of an amendment introduced in subsection (1) of section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by Act IV of 1973, a proviso was added to the effect that "provided that where a claimant has authorised any person to utilise any amount out of the certifi cate issued to him, the person entitled to receive the payment shall be the person so authorised". If indeed the petitioner has utilised compensation books belonging to other claimants under an authority given them, then he would appear to be entitled to receive cash compensation 7n terms of this proviso. We accordingly direct that the claim of the petitioner to receive the said compensation may be examined by the authorities concerned in accordance with flaw. As the petitioner is a man of meagre means, the Department may dispose of his claim expeditiously. The application is disposed of in these terms. Order accordingly.