1990 PLP 668 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 668 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 668 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 668 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 668 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. M. Hussain Jehanian Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑9‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 530 of 1985) ‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Target date of allotment significant for adjudication of the matter‑‑‑Determination of such date‑‑‑Two dates were found on the allotment order, on one of the dates orders seemed to have been passed; one purported to be the date of tender and the other purported to be date of proceedings‑‑‑If former date was treated as the date of allotment also petitioners seemed to have a good case for further examination; but, if latter date was treated as date of allotment they would have, prima facie, no case‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to resolve controversy regarding question of allotment; whether made or not within target date in favour of the petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. M. Hussain Jehanian Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners Civil Revision. It had arisen out of petitioners/plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to the allotment of State land on lease with possible consequences of grant of proprietary rights. The trial Court, it seems, mainly non‑suited the petitioners on the point of jurisdiction and other legal questions but the: High Court after having examined the merits came to the conclusion that the allotment orders relied upon by the petitioners were beyond the target date involved in the case. Learned counsel has shown us the photo copies of the disputed orders. Firstly, although very short and not in any proper f6rm; they do, prima facie, convey at least an intention to make allotment. Secondly, there are two dates found on the allotment forms. On one of the date the orders seem to have been passed‑‑one purports to be the date of tender and the other purports to be the date of proceedings. If the former is treated as the date of allotment also the petitioners seem to have a good case for further examination; but, if the latter is treated as the date of allotment they would have, prima facie, no case. After hearing both the learned counsel we consider just and proper to grant leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case to resolve the controversy regarding the question of allotment; whether made or not within target date in favour of the petitioners. Order accordingly. Security Rs.5,
000. On the question of maintaining of status quo both the learned counsel initially refuted each other regarding physical possession. However, later on they thought that each party is in possession of separate parcels of land; therefore, there would be no conflict of interests in so far as their clients are concerned. Be that as it may, both the parties if they want to retain the possession of the State land shall deposit Rs.1,000 per acre per year each, for the respective parcels of land claimed to be under their possession for reimbursement, from the date of the decision of the High Court; as also security for mesne profits payable either to the State for wrongful use and occupation or to the winning contesting party. Deposits to be made with the Collector within two months. When the deposits are made the amounts shall be invested in Khas Deposit Certificates which together with the profits shall be paid in accordance with the final judgment in the case. M.A.K./G‑227/S Leave granted.