Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Sheikh Muhammad Hussain VS Respondent: KAMAL DIN And Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: Sheikh Muhammad Hussain vs KAMAL DIN And Another Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1101 of 1980 Writ Petition
No.1544/R/1974 Date of Judgment:1984-08-15 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 122 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment, dated 12- 5-1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby respondents' writ petition arising out of an Urban Settlement Case was allowed. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 was transferred a shop with a chobara out of a composite property in 1962. The petitioner a local was in possession of another unit (a shop) in the same composite property. He not having found entitled to its transfer, it was auctioned. It appears that for reason of non-payment of price by the auction-- purchaser this unit in possession of the petitioner became available for transfer. In the meanwhile the petitioner also became eligible for its transfer on the basis of possession. It was accordingly transferred to him in 1968. He later on associated with him one Hafeez-ud-Din. Not satisfied with the transfer of the shop in his favour he made an applica--tion in 1972 seeking the transfer of the chobara which formed part of a unit already transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner carved out a staircase from the respondent's unit and gave it to the petitioner. He still not satisfied filed an appeal and the appellate forum gave him in addition to the staircase a varandah in the garb of a terrace, which in fact formed part of the respondent's chobara. On a Constitutional petition filed by the respondent the original unit transferred to his predecessor---in- interest was restored. Therefore, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel we find that there is no force in this petition. The unit which stood finally transferred in favour of respondent's predecessor-in-interest in 1962 could not be further divided in 1972, so as either to exclude from it a staircase or a terrace which formed integral part of
---
## Page 2
that unit. It had become independent and separate property since 1962. The petitioner in reality had no locus standi to challenge the transfer of that independent unit to the predecessor-in--- interest of the respondent whether in part or as a whole. The orders passed by the Settlement Authorities were clearly without lawful authority and have rightly been set aside by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.