Mst. MERAJ BEGUM and others vs Mst. SULTAN ZENAB and others
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the dismissal of the appellants' writ petition regarding the transfer of an urban property under the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act 1958. The core legal dispute involved the rival claims for the transfer of the entire house or, alternatively, the maintenance of its initial division between claimant and non-claimant parties. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the contesting parties and their respective counsel reached an amicable agreement to resolve the matter by dividing the disputed house vertically between them, as delineated on a site-plan made part of the record. Acting upon the joint request of the parties, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in accordance with the agreed settlement. The holding establishes that urban settlement disputes under the relevant rehabilitation legislation can be resolved and disposed of on the basis of a lawful, mutually agreed vertical division of the property between contesting claimants.
- Can an urban property dispute under the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act 1958 be resolved on the basis of a mutually agreed vertical division between contesting parties?
- Whether an appeal concerning the transfer of a displaced person's house can be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached by the parties before the Supreme Court?
- Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act 1958
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-5-1975 of the Lahore High Court; whereby dismissal of appellants' writ petition in an urban settlement case was affirmed by a learned Letters Patent Bench. The dispute relates to the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Settlement) Act (No, XXVIII of 1958). The whole of the house stands transferred to the respondents side. The appellants' case is firstly that the entire house should have been transferred to their predecessor-in-interest who was claimant while the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was a non-claimant and that in any case the division of the house, reflected in the initial earmarking of the appellants' portion should have been maintained.
2. After some discussion the parties present and their learned counsel have agreed that both the parties should be transferred the A house by dividing the same vertically. They have accordingly indicated the agreed division on a site-plan which has now been made a part of the record by marking the two so agreed divided parts, as A, B, C, D together with its upper portion and B, C, E, F together with its upper portion. The markings of the two portions; one, A, B, C, D in blue ink and red pencil and the second portion as B, C, E, F in blue ink and red pencil have been encircled in red pencil and initialled and detect (sic) by the Court Associate. The site-plan has also been signed by the learned counsel for both the sides and those of the parties who are present. The arrangement between the contesting party is fair. Both the learned counsel have requested for the disposal of this appeal in accordance therewith. We order accordingly.
3. ' This appeal thus is allowed in terms of the agreed settlement noted above. There shall be no order as to costs.