Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD JAMIL VS Respondent: SHAHADAT ALIHonorable Justice S. A. RAHMAN
1969 S C M R 958
1969 S C M R 958
Present : A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J
MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑Petitioner
versus
SHAHADAT ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 285 of 1967, decided on 26th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 11th April 1967, in Writ Petition No. 402‑R of 1967).
Displaced Persons (Compensation anti Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
--Sched., Part I‑House transferred to person not in possession of same‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider legality or otherwise of transfer.
Muhammad Sarwar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th October 1967.
ORDER
S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioner Mohammad Jamil contested the right of Shahadat Ali, respondent, to get a portion of the house in question, before the Settlement Authorities. His plea that the respondent had got another house under the Urban Development Scheme in Lahore, was taken note of, but apparently not considered to be a sufficient hurdle in his way. It is pointed out by Rana Mohammad Sarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the conditions on which the respon dent was given a quarter under the said Scheme, was that he should surrender whatever evacuee property he had in his possession, to the Department. There is also material on the record to show that the respondent actually took possession of that quarter on the 4th September 1957, vide statement of the Urban Development Inspector at page 54 of the record. After that, it appears, the respondent was not personally in possession, but claimed the house on the ground that his brother's wife was in possession. This would not establish his title to the house, and the point seems to have been missed by the departmental authorities as well as in the High Court.
We, therefore, grant leave to appeal as prayed. The petitioner, will furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 prior to the appeal being heard.
Leave granted.