Pakistan Case Law
1987 SCMR 841

RAHIM Bakhshand Another vs JAN MUHAMMAD And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 SCMR 841
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.816 of 1980 Writ Petition
Date1987-03-09
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a dispute over the classification of property transferred to the petitioners under settlement laws. The core legal question addressed was whether the property in question constituted a single unit or comprised two distinct units for the purpose of transfer. The Settlement Commissioner had previously determined that the property consisted of two units, resulting in the transfer of one unit to the respondents. The petitioners challenged this determination before the High Court, which declined to interfere with the Settlement Commissioner's findings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or error in the reasoning applied by the Settlement Commissioner or the High Court's subsequent refusal to intervene. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the lower authorities' findings, affirming that the property was correctly identified as two separate units. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, thereby maintaining the established transfer of the property units to the respondents.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a property transferred under settlement laws constitutes a single unit or two distinct units?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a factual determination made by a Settlement Commissioner regarding property units?
settlement lawproperty transferunit classificationspecial leave to appealsettlement commissioner

1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- In this petition for special leave to appeal the only question for consideration is whether the property initially transferred to the petitioners was one unit or it consisted of two units. The Settlement Commissioner held that it comprised two units; accordingly, he transferred one of the units to respondents Nos.1 and 2. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner in this regard We are not persuaded that suffered from any infirmity. We would, therefore, dismiss

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.