Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ROSHAN DIN VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 10 Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Qaisar Khan, Muhammad Haleem, Ghulam Safdar Shah Title: ROSHAN DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 10 Other Case No.:W. P. No. 1369/R of 1976 Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1127 of
1976 Date of Judgment:1978-01-20 Reported As: 1978 SCMR 160 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER QAISAR KHAN, J.-Roshan Din, a resident of Sialkot, got some land allotted in his name in villages Punuwal and Malagarpur of Siaikot Tehsil as Jammu & Kashmir refugee. Noor Din, Nawab Din and Mohammad Bashir submitted an application against him under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 alleging that Roshan Din had obtained the land by fraud as he was not a refugee from Jammu 8t Kashmir. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner after recording the evidence of the parties by his order dated 2-9-1976 held that Roshan Din had obtained the land by fraud as ho was not a Jammu 8t Kashmir refugee. He, therefore, cancelled the land from his name, Roshan Din filed a writ petition in the High Court at Lahore against the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) but the learned Judge in the High Court by his order dated 30 9-1976 upheld the finding of tae Additional Settlement Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition. Roshan Din has filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After hearing Mr. Abid Hussain Minto. Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit into his petition. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and the High Court both have held in view of the evidence of the parties that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this Court. Furthermore there was enough evidence on file that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee and in the circumstances this petition is, therefore, dismissed.