P L D 1987 Lahore 284 (PLP)
Syed GHAZANFAR ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus LATIF AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1987 Lahore 284 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | Syed GHAZANFAR ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus LATIF AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1987 Lahore 284 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1987 Lahore 284 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1987 Lahore 284 (PLP) (Syed GHAZANFAR ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus LATIF AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Ch. Muhammad Rajique Khan for Respondent No. 2.
- Ahmad Nawaz Qaisarani for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Date of hearing : 14th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑ Art. 199‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958). S. 10‑Re‑grant of land in favour of petitioner in lieu of his own land which had been acquired by Thal Development Authority Such land had earlier been acquired by Thal Development Authority with sanction of Government‑Land allotted to petitioner was taken over by Settlement Authority as evacuee land and allotted to respondent at the back of petitioner ‑ Since petitioner had not been heard before passing of impugned order, case was remanded to be dealt with by Notified Officer in presence of parties‑Notified Officer was directed to find out whether the land was given to petitioner as a re‑grant in favour of petitioner in view of his land having been acquired by Thal Development Authority‑Notified Officer was also required to determine whether area in question had earlier been acquired by Thal Development Authority with the sanction of Central Government‑Constitutional petition disposed of by High Court with directions to Notified Officer for determination of parties' respective claims. 1986 S C M R 863 rel.
Judgment & Decree
The relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the case of the petitioner is that the area in dispute allotted in f4vour of respondent No, 1 at RL‑11 No. 26 of village Wandhar, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh was earlier given to the petitioner as re‑grant in lieu of his own areas acquired by the T . D. A . The area in dispute which had been taken as evacuee and allotted to respondent No. 1 had earlier been acquired by the T . D. A . with the sanction of the Central Government. The orders of allotment in favour of respondent No.l dated 4‑6‑1973/28‑12‑1974 have been passed behind the back of the petitioner in whom the land in dispute vested in view of its re‑grant in his favour by the T.D.A.
2. Since the petitioner has not been heard before the passing of the impugned order it appears appropriate that the matter is decided in the presence of both the parties. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for entrustment to a competent Notified Officer for fresh decision. The Officer shall find out ask to whether the area in question was given in a re‑grant in lieu of the area of the petitioner acquired by the T . D . A . and secondly whether the area in question had earlier been acquired by the T.D.A. with the sanction of the Central Government. If the area in question had been acquired by the T. D . A . with the sanction of the Central Government and it had been given in a re‑grant to the petitioner in lieu of his own area acquired by the T.D.A. then the regrant in favour of the petitioner shall remain intact because the area having been acquired by the T.D.A. with the sanction of the Central Government would come to vest in the T . D. A . and would not be available for acquisition under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and consequently not allottable. 1986 S C M R
853. If on the other hand the Officer comes to the conclusion that the area was not acquired by the T . D. A . with the sanction of the Central Government, or, that it was not given in a re‑grant to the petitioner in lieu of his own area acquired by the T . D . A . , then the allotment in favour of the respondent will remain intact. This shall, however, be subject to the following observation: And that is, that it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the respondent bearing No.1375 on the basis of which the allotment was made at RL‑11 No.26 aforesaid, has itself been cancelled and the respondent has challenged the same through a writ petition. If the claim remains cancelled, the respondent shall have no right to the land in dispute. If the claim survives and remains intact then the respondent shall be entitled to alternate land in view of the fact that the litigation had remained pending throughout. To reiterate if the case of the petitioner is proved by him that the land in dispute was given to him in a re‑grant then he shall have the land. If he fails the land shall remain with respondent No.l subject to verification of the claim of the respondent that that is valid and in force. If the petitioner gets the land having proved that that has been given to him under the re‑grant, then, the respondent shall be given alternate land by the Settlement Authorities if the Claim No.1375 is found to be intact.
3. The petition is accordingly disposed of leaving the parties tots bear their costs. A.A./G‑34/L Order accordin