1997 PLP 1462 (SCMR)
NNJUMAN DATA GANJ BAKHSH ALI HAJVERI AND DARBAR BABA QASIM SAIN (Regd.), FAISALABAD through President and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZILEDAR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1462 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | NNJUMAN DATA GANJ BAKHSH ALI HAJVERI AND DARBAR BABA QASIM SAIN (Regd.), FAISALABAD through President and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZILEDAR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1462 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1462 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1462 (SCMR) (NNJUMAN DATA GANJ BAKHSH ALI HAJVERI AND DARBAR BABA QASIM SAIN (Regd.), FAISALABAD through President and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZILEDAR KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1024‑L of 1995).
- Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1160‑L of 1995).
- M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jaffari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1197‑L of 1995).
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in all above C.Ps.).
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑5‑1995 in Writ Petition No.31‑R of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of land in question‑‑‑Earlier remand order of High Court to Notified Officer for fresh decision of case‑‑‑Notified Officer's post‑remand decision was set aside by High Court in subsequent proceedings‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that in view of open order of remand by High Court in earlier Constitutional petition, Notified Officer was competent to examine legality or genuineness of order allegedly passed by Settlement Commissioner; whether said order was forged one or genuine raised purely question of fact; that finding of Notified Officer could not be ordinarily interfered with by High Court unless same was based on misreading of evidence or said officer had failed to take notice of material evidence; and that High Court was not competent to interfere with finding of Notified Officer‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions raised.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑Ziledar and eleven others, hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents, filed a Constitution petition in the High Court alleging that the land in dispute had been permanently transferred in their favour against their claims by an order dated 24‑2‑1956 passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner and that by an order dated 26‑7‑1987 the Additional Revenue Commissioner had refused to implement the same. A learned Single Judge in the High Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the notified officer, for a fresh decision, permitting the parties to raise as many questions of fact and law as they preferred before him. The said officer made inquiries and came to the conclusion that the land in dispute had never been allotted or confirmed to the contesting respondents and that the orders upon which they were relying were forged. Further, the land in dispute was State land and not evacuee property and as such did not form part of the compensation pool. The contesting respondents filed another Constitution petition to challenge the order of the notified officer. A learned Single Judge accepted the Constitution petition and declared the order of notified officer to be illegal, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. He further directed the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner to incorporate the names of the contesting respondents in the column of ownership of Jamabandi and restored the possession of the land in dispute to them. From the order of the learned Single Judge three petitions for special leave to appeal have been filed.
2. In support of these petitions it is contended that in view of the open order of remand made by the High Court in the earlier petition the notified officer was competent to examine the legality or genuineness of the order dated 24‑2‑1956 allegedly passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner; further, whether the said order was a forged one or genuine raised purely a question of fact and the finding of the notified officer could not be ordinarily interfered with by the learned Single Judge unless it was based on misreading of the evidence or the said officer had failed to take notice of material evidence. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge was not competent to interfere with the finding of a notified officer.
3. These contentions, amongst others, need consideration. Leave to appeal is granted.
4. The operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge will remain suspended during the pendency of the petition. A.A./A‑1437/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.