Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1987 SCMR 654

MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE

Citation1987 SCMR 654
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Constitutional Petition No.160 of 1985 Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal
Date1985-12-10
Judge(s)Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Abdul Qadir Sheikh, S. A. Nusrat
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH,J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of Sind High Court dated 15-4-1985 dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner.

2. Facts of the case briefly narrated are that petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing City Survey No.139, Ward 'B', Shahi Bazar, Hyderabad. The property was transferred by the Settlement Department to Haji Islamuddin, respondent herein, in an auction held on 22-12-1960 and subsequently P.T.O. Was issued to the auction --purchaser on 5-10-1964. He afterwards on 14-9- 1968 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent which was allowed by the Rent Controller. In these proceedings petitioner, inter alia, contended that the property in question being an evacuee trust property should not be transferred to Haji Islamuddin but this plea was rejected by the Rent Controller.

3. Petitioner's appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the Sind High Court by the judgment dated 23-10-1984 and his petition for leave to appeal, being C.P.S.L.A. No.537-K of 1984, was also dismissed.

4. Petitioner then took up a second round of litigation by filing a petition before Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board for declaration that the property being an evacuee trust property could not be transferred by the Settlement Department to Haji Islamuddin, but this petition was also rejected. It was in these circumstances that petitioner filed the constitutional petition in Sind High Court which was dismissed as stated earlier.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record we hardly find any scope for interference by this Court, for all the pleas raised by the learned counsel have been rejected by the learned Judges of the Division Bench for sound principles of law with which we entirely agree.

6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

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