1983 PLP 737 (SCMR)
Mst. KUBRA BIBI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQ AND 7 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 737 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.-Dispute. over transfer of property-Parties appearing before Settlement Authorities and agitating their respective contentions-Objection not raised before Chief Settlement Commissioner against his jurisdiction to hear matter and petitioner acquiescing therein-Held, can neither be raised before Supreme Court nor given any weight.-Jurisdiction, |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KUBRA BIBI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQ AND 7 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 737 (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 737 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.-Dispute. over transfer of property-Parties appearing before Settlement Authorities and agitating their respective contentions-Objection not raised before Chief Settlement Commissioner against his jurisdiction to hear matter and petitioner acquiescing therein-Held, can neither be raised before Supreme Court nor given any weight.-Jurisdiction, 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 737 (SCMR) (Mst. KUBRA BIBI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQ AND 7 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salim, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud -Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Ashiq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
- Date of hearing : 15th February, 1978.
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salim, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah‑ud -Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Ashiq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28-9-1977, passed in Writ Petition No. 1291-R of 1977).
Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.-Dispute. over transfer of property-Parties appearing before Settlement Authorities and agitating their respective contentions-Objection not raised before Chief Settlement Commissioner against his jurisdiction to hear matter and petitioner acquiescing therein-Held, can neither be raised before Supreme Court nor given any weight.-[Jurisdiction], Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1964 S C 829 and Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Hussain P L D 1976 S C 729 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salim, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah‑ud -Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Ashiq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to
6. Date of hearing : 15th February, 1978. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is connected with Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 623 of 1977, and the petitioners herein are respondents 10 and 11 in the said petition. This petition has accordingly been heard along therewith. The entire background and the questions falling for determination have been discussed in the order disposing of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 623 of 1977 and need not, therefore, be repeated here. The only additional submission in this petition is that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners herein was reopened by the learned Chief' Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 31‑7‑1975, passed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 326 of 1975, to which the petitioners were not a party. Consequently, the said order was not binding of the petitioners and the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not have cancelled the allotment of the petitioners in pursuance thereof. The order of the Supreme Court shows that it was observed therein that there were two sets of claimants in respect of the inheritance of Butey Khan namely, Ghulam 1duhammad, etc., predecessor‑in‑interests of the petitioners herein, and Gamun Khan (predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 1 to 6), and it was observed that it would be necessary for the Rehabilitation Authorities to determine as to which of the two sets claiming to be legal heirs of Butey Khan had a legitimate right to inherit his property. Consequently, when Allah Yar informant (respondent No. 7 herein) moved the Chief Settlement Commis sioner to determine this mater, he impleaded both sets of claimants. Both sides appeared before the Settlement authorities and fully agitated their respective contentions and no objection was raised by the petitioners herein against the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to hear the matter and they acquiesced therein. It was only after their claim was rejected that the petitioners raised the present objection. In these circumstances, the objection raised in this score before us cannot be given any weight. Reference in this behalf may be made to this Court's judgment in Ghulam Mohi-ud- Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD19.64SC829), which bas been reiterated, after noticing the previous judgments of this Court on the subject is Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD1976SC729). This petition accordingly must fail and is dismissed hereby. Leave refused.