1987 PLP 1394 (SCMR)
AKBAR ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1394 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1394 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1394 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1394 (SCMR) (AKBAR ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDA BIBI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.43/R of 1986). --‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Land settlement‑‑Interference with orders of Settlement Commissioner in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that High Court while depriving petitioners of land equivalent to 130 units had unjustifiably placed an untenable interpretation on order of Settlement Commissioner which was not interfered with at any stage nor even challenged by respondents although unsuccessfully challenged by petitioners themselves before Settlement Commissioner, High Court and Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑It is submitted that the learned Judge in the High Court while depriving the petitioners of land equivalent to 130 units has placed an interpretation on the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 20‑12‑1969 (which was not interfered with at any stage nor even challenged by the respondents although unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners themselves before the Settlement Commissioner, High Court and this Court), which was untenable, erroneous and unjustified. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the available record, there appears, prima facie, to be force in the above submission. Leave granted. Security to be furnished in the sum of Rs.2,
500. Appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any. Status quo as to possession of the petitioners, to the extent of the land equivalent to 130 units to be maintained pending the disposal of the appeal. M.I./A‑49/S Leave granted.