Seth WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of evacuee property to the petitioner, Saith Wali Muhammad Khan, and the identification of properties belonging to particular evacuee owners. The core legal question involves determining whether properties of different evacuee owners could be merged or if the unit of property must be fixed with reference to its own independent owner under the applicable law. The Court granted leave to consider the proper identification and segregation of the evacuee properties based on their original ownership. Furthermore, the Court ordered that an existing status quo granted on 5-8-1981 shall continue subject to the regular deposit of rent, failing which the petitioner would be liable to eviction, and directed the High Court to proceed with the pending Letters Patent Appeal arising from an ejectment application expeditiously to benefit from its views.
- Whether the unit of property in evacuee property transfer cases is to be fixed with reference to its own independent owners rather than being merged with properties belonging to different owners?
- Can a status quo order be made conditional upon the regular deposit of rent by the petitioner?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--Leave is granted to consider as to which property of which particular evacuee owner was transferred to Saith Wali Muhammad Khan son of Muhammad Ali.
Respondent herein and by process of elimination which property was left out for the reasons that the same belonged to different evacuee owners and could not be merged into the ownership of that portion which was transferred to the respondent. It is argued that unit of property in such cases was under the law to be fixed with reference to its own independent owners and not with reference to the property belonging to other of different owners. Security Rs.2,000.
2. Status quo granted on 5-8-1981 will continue subject to deposit of rent regularly up-to-date. If no deposit is made the petitioner wouldbe liable to be evicted.
3. The High Court may proceed with the L. P. A. Pending before it which has arisen from an ejectment application by respondent /landlord at the early date, so that we may have the benefit of its views.