1983 PLP 1251 (SCMR)
SALAMUDDIN-Petitioner Versus EJAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1251 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SALAMUDDIN-Petitioner Versus EJAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1251 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1251 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1251 (SCMR) (SALAMUDDIN-Petitioner Versus EJAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th April, 1983.
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16th May, 1979 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1241/R/1974).
Art. 185 (3)--Settlement Scheme No. VII-high Court deciding against petitioner relying on its earlier decisions on point--Petitioner contending that decision relied upon by High Court being not apposite but his case similar to another decided case by other High Court--Leave to appeal granted in view of prima facie force in contention-Petitioner if still in possession of property, ordered not to be disposed--Parties given liberty to add further documents for appeal.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The question whether the petitioner could be deemed to be in occupation of the house so as to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII arises in this case. The learned judge in the High Court has held against the petitioner on this point relying on his earlier decision in Muhammad Shafi v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others W. P. No. 394‑R/1979 wherein reliance was placed on Mst. Ambo Jan and 2 others v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Abbottabad and 6 others (P L D 1975 Pesh. 244) and Abdul Rahman v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1977 Lah. 576). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these decisions a not apposite and his case is similar to the case of Dewana v. Shah Muhammad (P L D 1918 Queue 12). After hearing the learned counsel we find prima facie force in this submission. Leave granted. Security Rs. 2,
500. Petitioner not to be dispossessed if he is still in possession. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the sties to add further documents. M. Z. M. Leave granted.