1989 PLP 1449 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN), PUNJAB and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1449 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujadd,JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN), PUNJAB and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1449 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1449 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujadd,JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1449 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN), PUNJAB and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Abdul Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑5‑1983 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.214/R of 1981 and 356/R of 1981 respectively). -‑‑S. l0‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Available property‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine points of law involved in questions (i) whether disputed property was at all available property in 1974 which had not been answered at all by a determinative finding by any Authority including the High Court; (ii) departmental report showed that it was not an available property, if so its transfer would be void; (iii) departmental report further showed that the impugned transfer made in 1974 was on the basis of forgery and fallrication in record and such a state of affairs necessitated a probe and matter could not be left in that state of uncertainty; and (iv) the contest being not between the vendor and the vendee but between vendee and third party, tracing and limiting the locus stand to sale‑deed was not prima facie in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑These petitions were ordered to be heard together as they arise out of a common judgment of the High Court though from separate Constitutional petitions. However, it has been reported that the petitioner in Civil Petition for leave to appeal No.429/84 is dead of which the learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware and undertakes to implead his successors‑in‑interest. The learned counsel for the Caveators has certain objections to it. Subject to such objections this petition should be completed for hearing and in the meantime the respondents shall take notice of the order passed in the connected Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No.428 of 1984 so that when the other one comes for hearing in appeal, the points of law taken note of therein assay be attended to if otherwise that petition is complete for hearing. The following questions of law require further examination to this Court for which leave to appeal is granted in C.P.LA. No.428 of 1984:‑ (i) The question in issue was whether the disputed property was at all available property in 1974. This question has not been answered at all by a determinative finding by any authority including the High Court. (ii) The departmental report shows that it was not an available property. If so its transfer would be void. (iii) The departmental report further shows that the impugned transfer made in 1974 was on the basis of forgery and fabrication in record. Such a state of affairs necessitated a probe. The matters could not be left in that state of uncertainty. (iv) The contest being not between the vendor and the vendee but between the vendee and third party, tracing and limiting the locus stand to sale deed was not prima facie in accordance with law. Security Rs.5,000 in C.P. 428 of 1984. M.BA./M‑846/S Leave granted.