1984 PLP 1204 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1204 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1204 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1204 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1204 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 1984.
- Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 18-4-1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.554 of 1982).
Art.185(3)--State land--Ejected tenants Scheme--Grant of proprietary rights to allottee on his fulfillment of conditions of allotment--Decision of High Court in upholding orders of Revenue Authorities found to be correct and not calling for interference--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1984. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The land in question had been allotted to respondents 1 and 2 under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in the year 1963. The petitioner who had been inducted by them as a tenant in the year 1979 applied for allotment of the land to him on 17‑1‑1980. Some time later, the said respondents applied for grant of proprietary right which way allowed subject to their clearing the arrears of rent. The petitioner agitated the matter but ultimately his revision application was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, on 21‑8‑1980 with the following observation. "The respondents are allottees of the land in dispute under Ejected Tenants Scheme. Proprietary rights were granted to such allottees in 1960. The respondents fulfilled the conditions for about 19 years and qualified for the grant of proprietary rights. The cultivation of the land in' dispute by the petitioner during 1979 does not disqualify the respondents to get proprietary rig his. " 2.Thereafter, the land was against cancelled from the name of the respondents by the order of Collector, dated 30‑8‑1980 but this order was set aside in appeal by the Additional Commissioner on 16‑12‑1981, who directed that the order passed by the Board of Revenue be acted upon.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 16‑12‑1981 at also that of the Member, Board of Revenue of 21‑8‑1980 by a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 18‑4‑1983 for the reasons that (1) the petition is so far as it challenges the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21‑8‑1980, suffered from laches, (2) as regards the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16‑12‑1981, the petitioner could not succeed because that was only a direction to implement the said order of the Member, Board of Revenue, (3) the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter, and (4) he having entered as a tenant under the respondents could not assail their title as landlords.
4. After hearing learned counsel, we feel satisfied that the decision taken by the High Court is correct and calls for no interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.