1975 PLP 186 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN ZAIR-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE
| Citation | 1975 PLP 186 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN ZAIR-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 186 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 186 (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: 1975 PLP 186 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN ZAIR-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J. A. Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 16th October 1974.
- J. A. Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 7th March 1974, in Writ Petition No. 41/R/BWP of 1966, Bahawalpur Circuit Baghdadul Jadid). -- Art. 185(3)-Settlement Authorities concurrently finding disputed property to be a house and one property and transferred to respondent after rejection of petitioner's L. H. form-Claim of property being transferred to petitioner and P. T. O. being issued not substantiated by evidence on record-Orders of Settlement Authorities, held, unexcep tionable.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑‑The petitioner filed an LH form for transfer of an Ihata in plot No. 14, Dera Ghazi Khan, which was allotted to him somewhere in 1948. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner rejected the form on the ground that he was a local and in possession of his own house. No appeal was preferred from this order by the petitioner. On 20th April 1960, the Ihata which has a room over it, was transferred to respondent No. 3, a claimant displaced person under the Earmarking Scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of transfer on which the case was remanded by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner examined the record and on hearing the parties concluded that the property in dispute was a house and the respondent a claimant displaced person had a preferential right to its transfer. The claim of the petitioner was thereby rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. A further revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner fared no better. Eventually the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which too has been dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. J. A. Pervaiz appearing in support of the petition did not make out any appropriate ground for interfering with the concurrent finding by all the Settlement authorities that the property in dispute, was a house, that it was properly transferred to respondent No. 3 under Earmarking Scheme as the L.H. form filed by the petitioner had been earlier rejected. The claim that the Ihata was transferred to the petitioner by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and a P. T. O. was issued to him was not substantiated by any evidence on the record. No just exception could, in the circumstances, be taken to the orders passed by the Settlement authorities. The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.