SHAUKAT ALI KHAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which upheld the cancellation of an allotment of a house to the petitioners. The petitioners, who were in occupation of certain outhouses attached to the property in question, had initially been allotted the house based on their possession and the filing of C.H. Forms. The allotment was subsequently cancelled on the ground that possession of outhouses did not entitle them to the transfer of the main house. The core legal question was whether the definition of 'House' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with the Schedule to the Act, allows for the transfer of a main house based solely on the possession of its outhouses. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that possession of an outhouse does not equate to possession of the main house for transfer purposes. The Court relied on established precedents, specifically Fazlun Nisa Begum v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, to confirm that such possession does not confer a right to transfer.
- Does the possession of an outhouse entitle a claimant to the transfer of the main house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Is there a legal distinction between the possession of a portion of a main house and the possession of an outhouse for the purpose of property transfer?
- Section 2(4), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Paragraph 1, Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners bad been in occupa--petition of certain outhouses of the house in question and on the basis of such possession and of their C. H. Forms were allotted the said house. The allotment was, however, subsequently cancelled on the ground that on the basis of their possession of some outhouses of the house they were not entitled to claim transfer of the house.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Judges of the High Court failed to read the definition of `House' in section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, together with paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Act, and this failure has affected their decision. It is argued that reading the said two provisions together the petitioners are entitled to claim transfer of the house on the basis of their possession of the outhouses for there was no difference between the possession of a portion of the main house and the possession of an outhouse of the house.
3. The High Court rejected this contention on the basis of two judgments of this Court, namely, Mst.
4. Fazlun Nisa Begum v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, judgment dated 24-3-1966 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-34 of 1966. This judgment of the Supreme Court was approved in the case o Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner (PLD1966SC719).
5. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioners' contention.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed an application under Scheme No. 8. This remedy, if available to the petitioners, will be considered on the merits of the petitioners' application.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN 1980 CLC 2021