Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GULZAR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), SARGODHA AND Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain Title:GULZAR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
(CONSOLIDATION), SARGODHA AND Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 945 of 1975 W. P. No. 714-R of 1973 Date of Judgment:1981-06-20 Reported As: 1981 SCMR 1252 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ASLAM Riaz HussainJ.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 12-8- 1975, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. 2. The petitioner who is a displaced person from India was allotted agricultural land in Chak No. 213/R. B. Within the municipal limits of Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) Municipality, on temporary basis. Subsequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner declared the land in question, to be urban land, vide Notification dated 16-5-1971, in exercise of his powers under section 2(3) (b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Resultantly, the petitioner was deprived of the said land. He challenged the abovementioned Notification through Writ Petition which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, firstly, that in vie of the provisions of section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958, he could not be deprived of the land in dispute. The contention is clearly misconceived, because that section gives protection only t the displaced persons on whom land has been permanently settled under the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the above said section do not protect the petitioner who was only a temporary, allottee. 3. It was contended next that the Chief Settlement Commission had no power to convert the agricultural land into urban land. This contention too, has no force, because as pointed out by the
---
## Page 2
learned Judge in Chamber in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the power is clearly spelt out by section 2(3) (b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. In this view of the matter, the Petition is dismiss as having no merit.