1972 PLP 319 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus Mirza MAHMOOD ALI BEG AND ANOTHER -Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 319 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus Mirza MAHMOOD ALI BEG AND ANOTHER -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 319 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 319 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 319 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR‑AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus Mirza MAHMOOD ALI BEG AND ANOTHER -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th June 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 16th August 1971, in L. P. A. No. 180 of 1971). Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 15‑Refusal to confirm proposed allotment on ground of inquiry being instituted with regard to genuineness of claim‑High Court directing Settlement Department to tentatively confirm land proposed in favour of claimant pending result of inquiry‑Confirmation of allotment being only temporary, order of High Court, held, valid. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The respondent, Mirza Mahmood Ali Beg, who is a claimant, got his claim registered in villages Pattal Munda and Perhar Munda, in Muzaffargarh District, but the Settlement Department refused to confirm the proposed allotment in his favour under the scheme, as an inquiry had been instituted with regard to the genuineness of his claim. This meant that the respondent's allotment could be cancelled or reduced in case his entitlement was found to be untenable wholly or partially. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge in chambers, who directed that the land proposed in favour of the respondent in the two villages mentioned above, be confirmed pending the result of the inquiry, which has already been instituted. The petitioner, who is a Settlement Commissioner, with no apparent personal interest in this land, first sought a review of the order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed, and then filed a Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. He has now come to this Court with a petition for special leave to appeal. On our repeated inquiries as to why, in spite of .his admission that he was in no way interested in this land personally, he was insistently opposing the confirmation in favour of the respondent, he has stated that there were other petty claimants whose claims were pending in this estate, which had been received before the claim of the respondent, and which had, therefore, to be given priority. But the persons, who are alleged to have been prejudicially affected by the High Court's order in favour of the respondent, have not moved in the matter, and we are unable to comprehend why is the petitioner fighting their battle. Nonethe less, however, altruistic the motive of the petitioner may be, as professed by him, we see no 'substance in this petition. The confirmation in favour of the respondent has been ordered by the High Court only tentatively, as it was being delayed illegally and without cause. The order of the High Court makes it clear that this confirmation will be subject to the result of the inquiry, which is pending in the matter. This should allay the apprehen sions of the petitioner and all others concerned in tile matter. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.