1968 SCMR 66 (PLP)
GHULAM NABI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 66 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 66 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 66 (PLP)?
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: 1968 SCMR 66 (PLP) (GHULAM NABI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advacate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Khlil-ur-Rehman Chaudhari, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th May 1967, in writ Petition No. 324/R of 1965). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sch. Part I-Person claiming vacant plot adjacent to house as part and parcel of house-Evidence in connection very discrepant-Plot actually in occupation of another and Settlement authorities treating plot as separate building site-Finding of Settlement authorities conclusive.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J. -The petitioner claims that the plot measuring about 4 marlas adjacent to the house No. S-1V-13-S-2, Beadon Road, Lahore, which stands transferred to him is a part and parcel of that house; that he had paid its evaluation price and a P. T. 0. was issued in his name, but the Settlement authorities had by a subsequent unlawful order cancelled the transfer of the plot in his favour. The order was brought before the High Court in writ jurisdiction, but the learned Judges have refused to quash it on the view that the identity of the plot was concluded by the concurrent findings of the Settlement authorities which will not be open to review under Article 98 of the Constitution. The house transferred to the petitioner is situated in Survey No. 1149 while the plot in dispute is according to the finding of the Settlement authorities part of Survey No. 1131 and in occupa tion of a third person. It is reiterated that the said plot is a part of Survey No. 1140 as borne out by the entries in the assessment register of the Corporation of the City of Lahore and the Excise and Taxation Department. In the P. A. list of the Corporations the area of the plot No. 1144 is entered as 12 marlas out of which 6 malas is built up while in the assessment register of Taxation Department the area is mentioned as 9 marlas the whole of which is built up. The evidence derived from these two sources was time discrepant Mid the WO Conn did not rely on it. Moreover, the measurements were carried out on the spot to verify the location of the plot. Assuming, however, that the plot claimed by the petitioner is situated in Survey No. 1140, its built up area having been divided between him and the occupant of the adjoining house the Settlement authorities were fully competent to dispose it off as a separate building site. The petitioner has not been in possession of the plot and under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had no entitlement to its transfer. In fact it was in the occupation of a third person who had put up temporary construction on it and laid claim to it under the Settlement Scheme No, VI. The High Court was thus justified in refusing to quash the impugned orders of the Settlement authorities. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.