1993 PLP 1840 (CLC)
QUTAB MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1840 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | QUTAB MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1840 (CLC)?
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 1993 PLP 1840 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1840 (CLC) (QUTAB MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10/11‑‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑‑Informers who filed application for cancellation of allotment of allottee after repeal of Act, 1958, had claimed that they had earlier filed application for cancellation of allotment of allottee before repeal of Act, but same was lost‑‑‑Objection of allottee, that application of informers was not maintainable as no proceedings were pending against him at time of repeal of Act, was overruled by the Authority‑‑‑No order for reconstruction of record of proceedings taken on earlier application alleged to have been filed by informers against allottee which application was stated to have been lost was passed by the Authority‑‑‑‑Notified Officer did not make any serious effort to ascertain as to whether in fact any previous application was filed by informers‑‑‑Notified Officer should have traced record of previous proceedings, if any, and if same was not available, reasons for its non- availability should also have been ascertained‑‑‑Objection of allottee to maintainability of application of informers which was filed after repeal of Act, was wrongly overruled by Authority.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th September, 1992. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by Outab Muhammad son of Allah Jiwaya, a displaced person from District Ferozepur. His entitlement is stated to have been verified to the extent of 4839 P.I. units, against which he was allotted lands in various villages of Tehsil Depalpur (now District Depalpur). On 18‑10‑1979, an application was filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 6 before the Notified Officer alleging that the earlier filed application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 for cancellation of the allotment obtained by the petitioner, which was stated to be in excess of his entitlement. During the course of hearing, an objection was raised by the petitioner that as the application has been filed after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, it was not maintainable as no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal. By his order 'dated 26th February, 1981, which has been impugned in this petition, the Additional Settlement Commissioner overruled this objection.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Aqil Mirza Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, but no one is present for the respondents, who have already been proceeded against ex parte.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the report and parawise comments submitted by him, respondent No .l has himself admitted that there was no order for reconstruction of the record of the proceedings taken on the earlier application alleged to have been filed by the respondents, which was stated to have been lost. According to learned counsel, the order is not based upon any evidence but is conjectural in nature.
4. This contention of the learned counsel is well‑founded. From the contents of the impugned order itself as also the report, it is clear that the Notified Officer did not make any serious effort to ascertain as to whether in fact any previous application had been filed by the informer which was the cardinal question. Similarly, the Notified Officer should have had traced the record of the previous proceedings, if any, and if the same was not available the reasons for its non‑availability should also have been ascertained. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is clearly not sustainable, Consequently this petition is allowed, and order dated 26‑2‑1981 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the case is remanded to the Notified Officer concerned for its decision afresh in accordance with law. He shall in the first instance, determine as to whether any application was pending at the time of the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, if not, with what effect. No order as to costs. H.B.T./Q‑14/L Petition allowed.