Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
1988 C L C 1744
1988 C L C 1744
[Lahore]
Before S. A. Mahmood, J
Kh. MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑Petitioner
versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (with Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore acid another‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.1336‑R of 1962, decided on 27th June,1963.
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Prior to partition two shops were in occupation of two different non‑Muslims on rent‑‑Such shops, held, could not De treated as one evacuee property and petitioner applying for transfer of such shops would not be entitled for transfer of both shops unless same were treated as one property‑‑Settlement Authorities, however, could decide what action, if any, was necessary in that respect.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Calling of record when to be declined‑‑Application for calling for some record filed by respondent at time of hearing constitutional petition was disallowed by High Court on ground that such application should have been made much earlier.
Bashir Zafir and Fazli Ghani for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.l. Karam Elahi Chauhan for Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
In this Writ Petition it is urged that the order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq in second revision dated the 20th of April, 1962 may be set aside on the ground that he had no power to entertain second revision. In this case the record of the case was not called before the 13th of January, 1962. The petitioner has in support of the contention that the record was not called before the relevant date produced a certified copy of the order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq dated the 7th of April, 1962 for issuing notice to these parties for the 20th of April, 1962 and for calling of records. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside as being without jurisdiction.
2. The order of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, however, is that there were two shops even before partition, one in occupation of Amar Nath and the other of Jai Lal, who were paying Rs.60 and Rs.20 p. m. The petitioner does not, therefore, appear to be entitled to two shops. He could only get both the shops if they are treated as one. It is, however, for the Settlement Authorities to decide what action, if any, is necessary in this connection.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has put in an application today that some records may be called for. This application should have been made much earlier and I am not inclined to grant it. The application is dismissed.
4. If the respondent finds that there was an earlier order passed before the 13th of January, 1962 to summon the record in second revision he may apply for a review of this order.
H . B . T . / M‑491 / L Order accordingly.