1968 SCMR 371 (PLP)
TANWEER ABBAS-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NAWABSHAH AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 371 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | TANWEER ABBAS-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NAWABSHAH AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 371 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 371 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 371 (PLP) (TANWEER ABBAS-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NAWABSHAH AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Salahuddin, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 4th May 1967, in Petition No. 152 of 1967). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sch. Part 1-Settlement authorities holding house indivisible and further that applicant for transfer merely a licensee and not in "possession" within meaning of Act-Findings involved question of fact-High Court, held, rightly refrained from interfering with findings in writ jurisdiction-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case, on a petition filed under Article 98 of the Constitution by Mst. Abida Begum, respondent No. 3, the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, quashed the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner and sent back the case to him for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated the 29th September 1965. The points on which specifically the Settlement Commissioner was required to apply his mind were whether the third respondent was in possession of the house in dispute, whether Shamim Ahmad, her husband, had remained in possession of the property up to the target date and as to when the petitioner here, Tanweer Abbas, occupied the house. The question whether the house was divisible or not was also left open for decision. After the remand, the case was taken up by the Settlement Authorities and the Additional District Judge and Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah, by order dated the 10th February 1967, transferred the whole house to the third respondent. This order was called in question by Tanweer Abbas, petitioner, by a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with the depart mental order and Tanweer Abbas seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The basis of the decision by the Settlement Commissioner is the finding that the third respondent was in possession of the house first along with her husband and later by herself, up to the year 1960, that she was in possession on the target date and that the petitioner was only a licensee in the house and not in "possession" within the meaning of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The house was also held to be not divisible and was, therefore, transferred as a single unit to the third respondent. These findings involved question of fact and could not have been challenged in the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution. The order passed was within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities and no reason was' shown why the High Court should have interfered with the findings based on adequate evidence. Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, on behalf of the petitioner, tried to suggest that the third respondent was an indirect claimant as she had rested her claim on the possession of her husband. The learned Counsel, however, concedes very fairly that in view of a Notification by Government, the possession by the wife along with her husband must be deemed to be possession in her own right. In these circumstances the High Court rightly held that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner was not open to any exception. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.