1968 SCMR 501 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALA-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 501 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALA-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 501 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 501 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 501 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALA-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sayeed A. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 7th November 1967, in Petition No. 691 of 1964). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Sch., Part III-Building site-"P" Form rejected without notice to applicant- Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-In this case the dispute relates to a Plot bearing Survey No. 673 J. M., situated in Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 occupied separate portions of this plot. The petitioner who had constructed a building on his portion filed a 'P' form for transfer of the plot to him. The other two filed separate C. H. forms for transfer of the plots as building site. On 11.8-60, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred a portion of the plot to respondent No.
6. Ultimately, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in revision divided the plot into two portions and transferred them to respondents 5 and 6 according to their possession. It may be mentioned here that these orders were passed without notice to the petitioner and before disposal of his 'P' form. On 19-12-60, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner without giving any notice to the petitioner rejected his form. When respondent No. 5 asked him to vacate the portion in his possession he applied for early disposal of his application and thereafter on 16-3-63 he was informed that his application had been rejected. His appeal and revision were also dismissed and the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner declined to reopen his case. He then moved a writ in the High Court but a Division Bench of that Court refused to grant him any relief on the ground that he "was not alert and has taken recourse to these proceedings after considerable lapse of time". The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. It was contended, inter alia: (i) that when his 'P' form was pending, the Settlement Authorities were not justified in transferring the plot to respondents Nos. 5 and 6, and (ii) that in any event the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, but this fact was not noticed by the High Court. These points are not without substance and we grant leave to' appeal as prayed. Security-Rs. 1,
000. Stay already granted will continue till disposal of the appeal.