1989 PLP 1477 (SCMR)
MAHMOORA and others Petitioners Versus ILAM DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1477 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, IJ |
| Parties | MAHMOORA and others Petitioners Versus ILAM DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1971 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1477 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1971 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1477 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, IJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1477 (SCMR) (MAHMOORA and others Petitioners Versus ILAM DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Addl. A.‑G. and S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.7 and 8.
- Date of hearing: 31st August 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 11‑12‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No.680/75). ‑‑‑S. 18‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner was tenant under the respondent‑‑Additional Chief Land Commissioner allowed respondent to retain his entire holding under the Land Reforms‑‑High Court's finding that petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order of Additional Chief Land Commissioner suffered from no infirmity as petitioner would have come into picture only if the Land Commission had found respondent to be holding excess land and consequent upon that finding respondent had elected to surrender the land under cultivation of the petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal against order of High Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a tenant under one Ilam Din. He filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner whereby Ilam Din was allowed to retain his entire holding under the Land Reforms. The petition was dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. 2 After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that the view taken by the High Court with regard to locus standi of the petitioner suffers from any infirmity. The petitioner would have come into the picture only if the Land Commission had found that Ilam Din held excess land and consequent upon that finding Ilam Din elected to surrender the land under cultivation of the petitioner. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./M‑853/S Petition dismissed.