1991 PLP 1564 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PUNJAB, LAHORE and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1564 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PUNJAB, LAHORE and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1564 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1564 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1564 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PUNJAB, LAHORE and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1990.
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 19-1-1986, passed in W.P. No.1593-R of 1977).
Ss.10 & 11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Allotment of land, cancellation of
Lave to appeal
Allotment of land in dispute duly confirmed in name of petitioner, subsequently was cancelled from his name
Contention that High Court had ignored to consider that allotment of land in dispute obtained earlier by a claimant on a bogus claim Form was cancelled being void ab initio and respondents who had stepped into shoes of that vendor claimant had no right in claim of that land
Contention raised by petitioner deserving consideration, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑1‑1986, whereby their Constitutional petition against the order dated 27‑12‑1976 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lahore was dismissed. The land in dispute was reserved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) on 2‑12‑1967, for allotment to the petitioners being displaced persons, but it was confirmed in the names of respondents Nos.3‑6 on 13‑4‑1968, without cancellation of reservation made for the petitioners. Appeal of the petitioners before the Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala was accepted, who vide his order dated 18‑8‑1969 cancelled the allotment made to the respondents and directed confirmation of the disputed land in the names of the petitioners to be made strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions. Consequently, the disputed land was confirmed in the names of the petitioners on Khata R.L.II No.29 by the D.S.C.(L) Gujranawala on 6‑12‑1972. Appeal of the respondents against this order which was treated as revision and entrusted to the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore was accepted vide his order dated 27‑12‑1976 and allotment already made in the names of the petitioners was cancelled. Constitutional petition against this order by the petitioners before the High Court was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners before us contended that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has ignored to consider that the allotment obtained on a bogus claim form No.1401 in village Vachhoki, Tehsil Hafizabad was cancelled by the Add]. Settlement Commissioner/C.S.C. on 22‑9‑1977 being void ab initio and the respondents who stepped into the shoes of the vendor claimant have no right in the claim of the disputed land. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by him deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Status quo in meanwhile, Security Rs.5,000. The appeal will be heard on the present record, but it is open to the parties to file additional documents. H.B.T./M‑1237/S Leave granted.