1991 PLP 1432 (CLC)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1432 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1432 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1432 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1432 (CLC) (FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Add1.A.‑G. for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Locus standi to invoke‑‑‑Allotment of land in favour of respondent‑‑‑Petitioner's grievance was that if allotment of land in question, was not cancelled from the name of respondent allottee, unhygienic conditions in the village would be created inasmuch as dirty water of entire village would remain in streets creating problems for the villagers‑‑‑Such grievance by itself, was not a ground to declare allotment of land in question in the name of respondent‑allottee to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence‑‑‑Petitioner's remedy might lie somewhere else‑‑‑Petitioner was unable to demonstrate as to how he was an aggrieved person within meaning of Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Petitioner had thus, no locus standi to challenge allotment of land in question‑‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No.2353 and Civil Miscellaneous No.l of 1991, decided on 30th March, 1991. ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Locus standi to invoke‑‑‑Allotment of land in favour of respondent‑‑‑Petitioner's grievance was that if allotment of land in question, was not cancelled from the name of respondent allottee, unhygienic conditions in the village would be created inasmuch as dirty water of entire village would remain in streets creating problems for the villagers‑‑‑Such grievance by itself, was not a ground to declare allotment of land in question in the name of respondent‑allottee to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence‑‑‑Petitioner's remedy might lie somewhere else‑‑‑Petitioner was unable to demonstrate as to how he was an aggrieved person within meaning of Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Petitioner had thus, no locus standi to challenge allotment of land in question‑‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, was dismissed in circumstances. Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Add1.A.‑G. for Respondent No.l. Admittedly, the land in dispute comprised in Khasra No.416 was allotted to respondent No.2, Nawabzada Sadaqat Ali Khan by the competent authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that if allotment of the land in dispute is not cancelled from the name of respondent No.2, it will definitely create unhygienic conditions in the village inasmuch as the dirty water of the entire village shall remain in its streets creating serious problems for the villagers. Thus itself cannot be a legal ground to declare the allotment of the land in question in the name of the contesting respondent without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The remedy of the petitioner may lie somewhere else either before respondent No.1 or before the Provincial Government. Learned counsel is unable to demonstrate before me as to how petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution. Definitely, he has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of the land in dispute. No case whatsoever has been made out for interference. This being so, there is no force in the petition which is dismissed in limine.
2. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, C.M. No.l of 1991 does not arise and as such the same is also disposed of. A.A./F‑266/L Petition dismissed.