UMAR DIN and others vs ALI MUHAMMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 241-R of 1971 regarding the division of disputed property remanded to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core legal question concerns the propriety and correct mode of dividing disputed property under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's division directing specific portions of the property to be transferred directly to occupants was not the correct mode of division in terms of the governing statute. Consequently, with the consent of the respondents' counsel, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's remand order. The Court laid down the principle that an open-ended remand order should be passed directing the Notified Authority to examine afresh the question of divisibility of the property and subsequently determine the entitlement of the claimants thereto.
- What is the correct mode of division of disputed property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition into an appeal and pass an open-ended remand order for fresh examination by the Notified Authority?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The question in this petition involves the propriety of the division, and the High Court in Writ Petition No,241-R of 1971 while remanding the case to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner directed the case to be disposed of as follows: "The proper course should have been to transfer the portions of the disputed property in possession of the petitioners to them and that portion which was in possession of respondents 2 to 9 to them, besides such other claimants in possession of the portions of the disputed property."
2. As in our view this was not the correct mode of the division of the property in terms of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, we directed issue of notice to the respondents for consideration of the point "as to why the petition be not converted into appeal and an open-ended remand order be passed directing the Notified Authority to examine afresh the question of divisibility of the property and thereafter the entitlement of the claimants thereto."
3. ' The learned counsel for the respondents appeared today and consented to the passing of such an order.
4. ' Accordingly, we would convert this petition into an appeal and allow it in the above terms.
5. However, we would direct that the Notified Officer shall dispose of the case within three months.
6. There will be no order as to costs. 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.
Cited by 1 case
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN (deceased) through Legal Heirs, etc vs Muhammad 2020 CLC 400, 2020 PLJ Lahore 172, 2019 LHC 4110