Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAHMOOD HUSSAIN VS Respondent: ZAHOOR HUSSAIN
1988 S C M R 1967
1988 S C M R 1967
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MAHMOOD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
ZAHOOR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.198 of 1982, decided on 12th July, 1988.
(From the order dated 14‑12‑1981 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Letters Patent Appeal No.251 of 1965).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII OF 1958)‑
‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3) Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Demarcation of‑‑Petitioner disputing transfer of inter‑floor of an evacuee shop‑‑Question whether inter‑floor and the shop transferred to respondent formed a single unit being essentially one of fact, High Court could not ordinarily interfere with a finding thereon‑‑Such finding not suffering from any infirmity, leave to appeal refused.
K. Muhammad Younas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
ORDER
S.AAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of an order dated 14‑12‑1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Letters Patent Appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to an inter‑floor overlying directly over the shop transferred to respondent No. 1. The petitioner was a claimant and the contiguous shop was transferred to him. Respondent No. 1 was a non‑claimant. The case of the petitioner is that the inter‑floor was in his possession and being a claimant he was better entitled to its transfer than respondent No.1. His claim was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who personally inspected the building and found that the inter‑floor and the shop transferred to respondent No.1 formed one unit. His decision was upheld in revision by the Settlement Commissioner.
3. The question whether the inter‑floor and the shop transferred to respondent No.1 formed a single unit was essentially one of fact. The High Court could not ordinarily interfere with this finding. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not persuaded that this finding suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.
M.I. /M‑568/S Petition dismissed.