1985 PLP 1058 (SCMR)
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus FARHAT ULLAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1058 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUNAWAR ALI KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus FARHAT ULLAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1058 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1058 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1058 (SCMR) (MUNAWAR ALI KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus FARHAT ULLAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court dated 13‑6‑1979 in W.P. No. 564/R 1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of house to respondent on N.C.H. Form‑‑Cancelled for non‑payment and property resumed‑‑Subsequently, cancellation order set aside and property restored to respondent‑ Petitioner raising contention that his pending C.H. Form for transfer of said property was not kept in view while setting aside cancellation‑ Cancellation and resumption not being irrevocable, Settlement authorities held competent to make restoration in favour of respondent‑‑Petitioner having no preferential claim over respondent, his C.H. Form could not stand in way‑‑High Court's order rejecting claim of petitioner main tained‑‑Leave refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13‑6‑1979 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him claiming the transfer of a house was dismissed. The house in dispute (D/2778 Kucha Sadhu Misar, Lahore) was transferred on the N.C.H. form to respondent No.l in 1960. The petitioner claims to have filed a C.H. form in 1966. In 1968 the transfer in favour of respondent No.l was cancelled and property resumed for non‑payment. Thereafter, it was put to auction. The respondent No‑1, however, succeeded in getting the orders of cancellation of the property from his name revoked and its resumption set aside with the result that it was restored to him. The petitioner contended that the restoration to the transferee was without taking into consideration the vested interest that had accrued to him on such cancellation and resumption especially so when his application for transfer was already pending. The High Court rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his interest in the property came into existence on its being resumed, but since the resumption order itself had been set aside he had no claim to it. It was also found that his appeal in the settlement hierarchy was dismissed on 28th January 1974 but he filed the writ petition in May 1979 and hence it suffered from laches. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and his only contention is that the fact that he was an applicant for the transfer of the property was not kept in view while setting aside the cancellation of the transfer of the property in favour of the respondent and. that he was a claimant. The facts of the case clearly bear it out that the property stood disposed of in favour of the respondent in 1960. The cancellation of the transfer and resumption of the property was not irrevocable. Jurisdiction was conferred on the settlement authorities to set aside the resumption order and restore the property. That was in fact exercised and the application filed by the petitioner could not stand in the way. The petitioner had no preferential claim over the respondent in the matter of transfer of the property and the settlement authorities as well as the High Court rightly rejected his claim. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. M. I. Leave refused.