1995 PLP 890 (SCMR)
LAND REFORMS COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZRA PARVEEN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 890 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAND REFORMS COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZRA PARVEEN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 890 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 890 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 890 (SCMR) (LAND REFORMS COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZRA PARVEEN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Irfan Qadir, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1994.
- 3. The learned counsel contended that the legal position stands settled by judgment reported in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). Mr. Irfan Oadir, learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that in view of this judgment there existed no ground for admitting the petition for ‑ regular hearing. The petition has been admitted for regular hearing and the petitioners will have the opportunity to argue the case and place before the learned Judges of the High Court the judgment cited by them. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. We refuse to grant leave. However, we expect that the High Court would dispose of the petition filed by the respondents expeditiously.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 14‑2‑1993 passed in W.P. No. 2215 of 1992). Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Proceedings against respondents for non‑filing ‑ of declaration under Land Reforms Act, 1977‑‑ High Court admitting Constitutional petition against initiation of such proceedings and also granting interim relief to respondents‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Effect of judgment of Supreme Court in Sardar Ali's case PLD 1988 SC 287, whereby no grounds existed for admitting Constitutional petition‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by respondents having been admitted for regular hearing petitioners would have opportunity to argue the case and place before the High Court said judgment of Supreme Court (PLD 1988 SC 287)‑‑‑Order in question, therefore, did riot warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J: ‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby Constitution Petition filed by the respondents was admitted for regular hearing and interim relief was also granted.
2. Respondent No. 1 filed declaration under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Deputy Land Commissioner by his order dated 8‑7‑1974 determined her holding to 19645 produce index units, allowed her to retain 14000 produce index units and resumed 5645 produce index units in favour of the Government. By Land Reforms Act, 1977, the ceiling of individual holding was further reduced, but respondent No. 1 did not file declaration by 25‑5‑1977. In March 1989, petitioner No. 2 initiated proceedings under section 3 of the Land Reforms Act, against which a Constitution Petition was filed by the respondents, which was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh one after the decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner. As the further proceedings were taken, the respondents filed Constitution Petition in which the impugned order was passed.
3. The learned counsel contended that the legal position stands settled by judgment reported in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). Mr. Irfan Oadir, learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that in view of this judgment there existed no ground for admitting the petition for ‑ regular hearing. The petition has been admitted for regular hearing and the petitioners will have the opportunity to argue the case and place before the learned Judges of the High Court the judgment cited by them. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. We refuse to grant leave. However, we expect that the High Court would dispose of the petition filed by the respondents expeditiously. AA./L‑75/S Leave refused.