SALAMUDDIN vs EJAZ AHMAD AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the question of whether the petitioner could be deemed to be in occupation of a house so as to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner based on previous judicial precedents regarding occupation. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, who argued that those precedents were not apposite and that the case was similar to another cited precedent, the Supreme Court found prima facie force in the submission. The Court consequently granted interim protection against dispossession, ordered security, and directed that the appeal be made ready on the present record. The key principle revolves around evaluating the factual nature of occupation and eligibility for property transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII based on applicable precedents.
- Whether a petitioner can be deemed in occupation of a house to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Do prior decisions on property occupation apply universally or depend on the specific factual matrix of each case?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The question whether the petitioner could be deemed to be in occupation of the house so as to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII arises in this case.
2. The learned judge in the High Court has held against the petitioner on this point relying on his earlier decision in Muhammad Shafi v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others W. P. No. 394-R/1979 wherein reliance was placed on Mst.
3. Ambo Jan and 2 others v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Abbottabad and 6 others (PLD 1975 Pesh. 244) and Abdul Rahman v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1977 Lah. 576).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these decisions a not apposite and his case is similar to the case of Dewana v. Shah Muhammad (PLD 1918 Queue 12).
5. After hearing the learned counsel we find prima facie force in this submission.
6. Security Rs. 2,500.
7. Petitioner not to be dispossessed if he is still in possession.
8. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the sties to add further documents.
9. M. Z. M. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.