1986 PLP 2071 (MLD)
HASSAN DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus A.C./D.S.C./A.R.C. (LANDS), SHEIKHUPURA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2071 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | HASSAN DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus A.C./D.S.C./A.R.C. (LANDS), SHEIKHUPURA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2071 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2071 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2071 (MLD) (HASSAN DIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus A.C./D.S.C./A.R.C. (LANDS), SHEIKHUPURA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salam for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat and Talib H. Rizvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑ Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Disputed land shown as village site, on which more than 20 families were residing after constructing houses thereon, was allotted to other persons /respondents as agricultural land without issuing any notice to inhabitants/petitioners‑‑Such land being originally village site, held, could not have been allotted as agricultural land‑‑Petitioners having been condemned unheard by not issuing prior notice before allotment to respondents, allotment of village site as agricultural land was set aside by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, being in violation of rule of natural justice. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Settlement Department.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salam for Petitioners. A.R. Shaukat and Talib H. Rizvi for Respondents. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Settlement Department. Through this constitutional petition, Hassan Din and 19 others, the petitioners want this Court to declare the allotment of Khasra No.115/5 to Abdul Sattar and 3 others, respondents Nos.2 to 5 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ A.R.C. (L), Sheikhupura to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The dispute relates to Khasra No.115/5 of Chak No.5 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Chak No.4/R.B. Sheikhupura. Hassan Din and 19 others, the petitioners are "Bashindagan". Their case is that the disputed Khasra is "Ghair Mumkin Abadi". They have constructed houses thereon. The Settlement Department however allotted this Khasra to Abdul Sattar and others respondents Nos. 2 to 5 without any notice to them, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed Khasra is "Ghair Mumkin Abadi" and as such could not have been allotted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5; that no notice was issued to the petitioners and that they have been condemned unheard. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that undisputedly Khasra No.115/5 was a "Ghair Mumkin Abadi" that more than 20 families are living there; that the residents of the Killa have constructed houses there; that although the Khasra was shown as "Ghair Mumkin Abadi" yet no notice was issued to " Bashindagan before allotting the same to the respondents; that the Khasra No.115/5 being "Ghair Mumkin Abadi" could not have been allotted as agricultural land and that the petitioners have been condemned For what has been said above, I am convinced that the impugned order is not only illegal but also opposed to the rule of natural justice and as such, there is no option but to declare the same to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T Petition allowed.