1985 PLP 1273 (SCMR)
Mst. HALEEMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1273 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. HALEEMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1273 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1273 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1273 (SCMR) (Mst. HALEEMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 12‑‑Transfer of evacuee land‑‑Suit for possession against peti tioners‑‑During pendency of suit and without proper proceedings for resumption, property transferred in favour of petitioners under Settlement Scheme No. VII‑‑Trial Court ignoring subsequent transfer decreeing suit of respondents‑‑Petitioners' first and second appeal dismissed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that after transfer of property in favour of petitioners Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction and that proper course for respondents was to have moved Settlement authorities, repelled‑‑Property, having already been transferred in favour of respondents was not available and as such could not be settled in favour of petitioners‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑9‑1980 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 169 of 1980). Constitution of Pakistan. (1973)‑‑
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 12‑‑Transfer of evacuee land‑‑Suit for possession against peti tioners‑‑During pendency of suit and without proper proceedings for resumption, property transferred in favour of petitioners under Settlement Scheme No. VII‑‑Trial Court ignoring subsequent transfer decreeing suit of respondents‑‑Petitioners' first and second appeal dismissed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that after transfer of property in favour of petitioners Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction and that proper course for respondents was to have moved Settlement authorities, repelled‑‑Property, having already been transferred in favour of respondents was not available and as such could not be settled in favour of petitioners‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The property in question which had been temporarily allotted as agricultural land to Elahi Bakhsh, father of the present respondents, in 1954, had been transferred to him in December, 1964. After his death the respondents were substituted as heirs vide mutation of inheritance, dated 31‑7‑1969. The same years they instituted a suit for, possession against the petitioners on the ground that they were trespassers. During the pendency of the suit and without proper proceeding for resumption, the property was transferred, on 3‑4‑1974, in favour of the petitioners under Scheme No: VII. Nevertheless, the trial Court, ignoring this transfer, proceeded with the suit which it decreed in favour of the respondents on 10‑7‑1975. The petitioners' first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 5‑2‑1980 and their second appeal by the High Court by the impugned order, dated 29‑9‑1983.
2. It is submitted that after the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners under Scheme No. VII, the Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction and that the proper course for the respondents was to have moved the Settlement authorities who alone had the power to annul the transfer made in favour of the petitioners. This point had been raised before the High Court but repelled on the view that as the property had already stood transferred to the respondents‑predecessor -in‑interest, the same was not available and as such could not be settled in favour of the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel we find no merit in this petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.