Pakistan Case Law
1976 SCMR 68

ALLAH DITTA vs JAN MUHAMMAD ETC.S

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1976 SCMR 68
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1969
Date1975-07-10
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul
Authored byAnwarul Haq
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This application was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking a clarification of its earlier order dated 25th October 1973, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil appeal regarding the transfer of an evacuee house. The petitioner, having lost his entitlement to the house, sought cash compensation in lieu of the compensation books he had purchased from other claimants and deposited with the Settlement Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an authorized user of compensation books belonging to other claimants, was entitled to receive cash compensation under the statutory framework. The Supreme Court, referencing its notes from the original hearing, acknowledged that it had intended to include observations on this point. The Court held that under the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, as amended by Act IV of 1973, an authorized person who utilizes compensation books is entitled to receive the payment. Consequently, the Court directed the relevant authorities to expeditiously examine and dispose of the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a person who has utilized compensation books belonging to other claimants under their authority is entitled to receive cash compensation upon the cancellation of a property transfer?
  • Can the Supreme Court clarify its previous judgment to include an omitted observation regarding a party's statutory entitlement to compensation?
  • What is the effect of the proviso added to Section 15(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 by Act IV of 1973 on authorized users of compensation certificates?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 15(1), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
clarification of orderevacuee propertycompensation bookscash compensationsettlement department

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This application prays for a clarification of the cider made by this Court on the 25th of October 1973, whereby Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1969 filed by the petitioner, Allah Ditta, in respect of the transfer of an evacuee house situate in Krishna Gali No. 2, Gawalmandi, Lahore, was dismissed. The judgment is reported as Allah Ditta v. Haji Jan Muhammad (PLD 1974 SC 113).

2. The petitioner had obtained the transfer of that house in the capacity of an informant, and had paid its evaluation price by purchasing compensation books from other claimants. Now that his entitlement to retain the house has been finally negatived, he is anxious to obtain cash compensation in lieu of the compensation books deposited by him with the Settlement Department. It is submitted that at the time of the dismissal of the appeal an observation was made by the Court that some remarks would be included in the judgment on this point, but unfortunately, this has not been done due to an oversight. By means of the present application it is prayed that an observation or direction in this behalf may be made so as to enable the petitioner to obtain the said compensation.

3. We have perused the notes taken by us at the time of the hearing of the petitioner's appeal, and we find that it was indeed Intended to make some observations of the kind mentioned in the present application. It appears that by means of an amendment introduced in subsection (1) of section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by Act IV of 1973, a proviso was added to the effect that "provided that where a claimant has authorised any person to utilise any amount out of the certifi--cate issued to him, the person entitled to receive the payment shall be the person so authorised". If indeed the petitioner has utilised compensation books belonging to other claimants under an authority given them, then he would appear to be entitled to receive cash compensation 7n terms of this proviso. We accordingly direct that the claim of the petitioner to receive the said compensation may be examined by the authorities concerned in accordance with flaw. As the petitioner is a man of meagre means, the Department may dispose of his claim expeditiously.

4. The application is disposed of in these terms.

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