1989 PLP 1622 (SCMR)
Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others Petitioners Versus MURID HUSSAIN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1622 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others Petitioners Versus MURID HUSSAIN and others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1622 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1622 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1622 (SCMR) (Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others Petitioners Versus MURID HUSSAIN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.1367 of 1983).
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1422 of 1983).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C. P. No.1422 of 1983).
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1989.
- Ch. A. S. Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petilioers (in C. P. No.1307 of 1983).
- 5. So far as the petition of the legal representatives of Muhammad Ismail is concerned, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing on their behalf has not been able to show the basis on which they are claiming the shop in dispute. His claim to the shop was rejected as far back as in 1962 by the Settlement authorities A and his writ petition was also dismissed. He did not pursue his claim any further. The High Court was therefore right in rejecting his writ petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 31‑10‑1983, passed in L.P.A. No.244 of 1967 and W.P. No.262 of 1982 respectively). (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVITI of 1958)‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners had not been able to show the basis on which they were claiming the shop in dispute‑‑Claim to the shop was rejected in 1902 by Settlement Authorities and writ petition was also dismissed‑‑Claim was not perused any further‑‑Hold, High Court was right in rejecting the writ petition. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners' writ petition was dismissed by High Court on the ground of laches‑‑Order of transfer was made in favour of respondent in 1976 which was not challenged till 1982‑‑No explanation was given in High Court or Supreme Court for keeping quiet for so many years‑ Order of High Court wits not interfered with‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑ (Laches). Ch. A. S. Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petilioers (in C. P. No.1307 of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑‑The dispute in these two petitions for special leave to appeal relates to a shop situate in .1chania. It was evacuee property, Muhammad Ismail, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners in C.P. No. 1367, applied for its transfer. The basis of his claim to the shop was that he was in possession of a Khokha built upon a part of the Thara of the shop. His claim was rejected by the Settlement Authorities whereupon he filed :t writ petition in the High Court (W.P No. 2600‑R of 1962), It was dismisscd on 26‑11‑62 by a learned Single Judge with the observations:‑ "It appears that the Thara in possession of the petitioner has not been held to be a part of the shop in dispute. This being the case, the petitioner has no right to get the shop. If so considered, the petitioner may bid in the auction." Muhammad Ismail did not pursue the matter any further.
2. On 29‑10‑1966 Guliar Ahmad, petitioner in C.P. No. 1422 of 1983 applied to the Settlement authorities for the transfer of the shop under Scheme No. VIII. While his applicaion was pending, he transferred the possession of the shop to Murid Hussain, respondent. On the application of Murid Hussain, the shop was transferred to him on 6‑11‑1976.
3. Muhammad Ismail filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the transfer made in favour of Murid Hussain. It was dismissed on 11‑10‑1966 by a fairely detailed order. He filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition.
4. On 9‑2‑1982/15‑2‑1982 Guliar Ahmad filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the transfer made in favour of Murid Hussain. His petition and the Letters Patent Appeal of Nluhammad Ismail were heard together by a Division Bench. They were both dismissed. The legal representatives' of Muhammad Ismail and Guliar Ahmad seek leave to appeal from this Court.
5. So far as the petition of the legal representatives of Muhammad Ismail is concerned, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing on their behalf has not been able to show the basis on which they are claiming the shop in dispute. His claim to the shop was rejected as far back as in 1962 by the Settlement authorities A and his writ petition was also dismissed. He did not pursue his claim any further. The High Court was therefore right in rejecting his writ petition.
6. As regards the petition filed by Guliar Ahmad, it was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of laches. The order of transfer was made in favour of Murid Hussain in 1976. The petitioners did not care to challenge it till 1982. The High Court found that there was no explanation whatsoever why he had kept to quiet for so many years. Before us, too, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to offer any satisfactory explanation in this regard. We are therefore not prepared to interfere with the order of the High Court.
7. For the reasons stated above, leave to appeal is refused in both the petitions. M.A.K./S‑301/S Leave to appeal refused.