Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM HUSSAIN ZAIR VS Respondent: CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Muhammad Yaqub Ali Khan Title:GHULAM HUSSAIN ZAIR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB,
LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS Case No.: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 296 of 1974 Date of Judgment:1974-10-16 Reported As: 1975 SCMR 186 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB Au, 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 tiled 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.
---
## Page 2
' The claim that the Ihata was transferred to the petitioner by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and a P. T. 0. 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.