1989 SCMR 2021 (PLP)
THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH through L.Rs. and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 2021 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH through L.Rs. and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Thal Development Act (XV of 1949) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 2021 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Thal Development Act (XV of 1949) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 2021 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 2021 (PLP) (THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner Versus MAULA BAKHSH through L.Rs. and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court, Tanvir Ahmad, Addl. A. G. Punjab and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No. 143 of 1981).
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No. 250 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 143 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 250 of 1981).
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
- After hearing the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the Authority in C.P.143/81 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P.250/81 at some length, we feel that there are some features common to both the A petitions; and the High Court's judgments would have to be reconciled either by accepting the point of view of the Thai Development Authority or of the other side. We accordingly grant leave to appeal in both the petitions.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.30‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Petitions for leave to appeal against two separate judgments of High Court‑‑Sale of land in both cases was subsequently cancelled by Authority on account of contravention of conditions of sale including non‑payment of sale price‑‑One of the petitioners filed a suit; obtained a decree against Authority and succeeded upto the High Court resulting in restoration of his land‑‑Other petitioner lost his case before departmental authorities upto the Board of Revenue and his Constitutional petition was also dismissed by the High Court‑‑There being some features common to both petitions, High Court's judgment would have to be reconciled either by accepting point of view of Thal Development Authority or of the other side‑‑Leave to appeal was thus granted in both the petitions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions for leave to appeal are directed against two separate judgments of the Lahore High Court; but, they arise out of similar circumstances. The respondent in C.P.143/1981 and the petitioners in C.P.250/81 were sold land by the Thal Development Authority. The sale in both the cases was subsequently cancelled on account of contravention of the conditions of sale including the non‑payment of the sale price. Maula Bakhsh, deceased (Respondent in C.P.143/81) filed a suit, obtained a decree against the Thai Development Authority and succeeded upto the High Court where a Civil Revision of the Thai Development Authority was dismissed. It has now sought leave to appeal in that case. In the other petition (C.P.250/81) Maqbool Ahmad and Ghulam Muhammad, petitioners lost before the departmental authorities upto the Board of Revenue. They filed a writ petition in the High Court which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought by them. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the Authority in C.P.143/81 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P.250/81 at some length, we feel that there are some features common to both the A petitions; and the High Court's judgments would have to be reconciled either by accepting the point of view of the Thai Development Authority or of the other side. We accordingly grant leave to appeal in both the petitions. Security only in C.P.250/81 for costs is fixed at Rs.2,
000. Both the appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. The stay order passed in C.P.250/81 shall continue. The effect of deposit made by the petitioners in C.P.250/81 under the direction of the High Court, shall be examined at the time of final hearing of the appeals. A.A./T‑44/S Leave granted.