1985 PLP 915 (SCMR)
Mst. SULTANA BEGUM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus The ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G)/A.S.C.,
| Citation | 1985 PLP 915 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhmmad Afza1 Zu1lah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SULTANA BEGUM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus The ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G)/A.S.C., |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 915 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 915 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhmmad Afza1 Zu1lah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 915 (SCMR) (Mst. SULTANA BEGUM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus The ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G)/A.S.C.,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Salim A. Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record and Raja M. Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 to 13.
- S. Majid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.8.
- Salim Ahmed Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.5 (in C.T.741/1980).
- Nemo for Respondents 2 and 3 (in C. P. 1429/1980).
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court in 925/r, 1446‑R of 1977 dated 3-3-1983. Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.10‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine (i) effect of previous Supreme Court judgment on respective pleas of contesting parties; (ii) whether petitioner had locus standi to file Constitutional petition and whether High Court should have allowed relief; and (iii) whether one or other party was entitled to possession of land in dispute.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After hearing all the learned counsel we consider it a fit case to examine inter alias‑‑ What is the effect of the previous Supreme Court judgment on the respective pleas of the contesting parties: Assuming, as the High Court did that notwithstanding the doubts about the orders of confirmation of allotment in favour of Mst. Sultana Begum petitioner the proposal could be deemed to have been confirmed in due course, whether it could be treated as void, invalid or in any way illegal on any ground including lack of notice to the other party, whose claim was based on allotment which was in fact bogus: Whether the writ petitioner in the High Court had the locus standi to file Constitutional petition and whether the High Court should, in its discretionary jurisdiction have allowed relief to the writ petitioners. Whether Mst. Sultana Begum could not be treated as in possession constructive or otherwise for purpose of the same relief which the High Court allowed to the other party; and Whether the latter were not entitled to the same on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment. Order accordingly. Security Re. 2,500 each.
2. No alienation of the property in dispute nor any change in its character or status. Security by persons in possession for. mesne profits from date of High Court judgment to the satisfaction of local Tehsildar. S. Q Leave granted.