1998 PLP 112 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 112 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ, |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 112 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taki Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Munir Hussain Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents/Caveators.
- Date of hearing: 28th January, 1997.
- Taki Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Munir Hussain Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents/Caveators.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑7‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 246‑R/91 and CM No. 1066/95). ‑‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code * (V of 1908), S.12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Allotment on basis of Mukhbari application‑‑ High Court on basis of Constitutional petition of rival Mukhbars, set aside order of allotment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in consequence of cancellation of allotment of land in question in favour of original allottee, same was required to be allotted to respondents as legal heirs of first Mukhbar in preference to subsequent Mukhbar and whether respondents obtained judgment in their favour on basis of fraud and misrepresentation and by omitting to implead in their Constitutional petition, petitioner vendees from allottee of subsequent Mukhbari application.
Judgment & Decree
MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.
Petitioners Maqbool Ahmad; Rashid Ahmad and Rafique Ahmad have sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-7-1996 delivered by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, dismissing their application, which they had moved under section 12(2) of C.P.C. against the judgment dated 27-4-1994 delivered by Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.246-R of 1991, challenging the same to have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. One Shukar Din was allotted 218 Kanals and 18 Marlas evacuee land in village Chattar, District Sialkot. For challenging said allotment, three Mukhbari applications were moved. The application dated 19-9-1973 was moved by Ilam Din, predecessor of respondents 2 to
6. Another application dated 9-6-1974 was moved by Hamid Khaldi and others. Third application dated 28-6-1974 was moved by Taj Din and others including Gulzar respondent 'N
6. A The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore under an order dated 14-1-1977 cancelled the allotment made in favour of Shukar Din and resumed the same. The disputed land was, however, allotted to Gulzar Ahmad and others on the basis of their Mukhbari application dated 28-6-1974. Again on 2-4-1977 the disputed, land was allotted to Gulzar Ahmad respondent No.10. Present petitioners claimed to have purchased the disputed property from Gulzar Ahmad on 23-2-1978 for consideration. The legal heirs of deceased Ilam Din respondents 2 to 6 and Muhammad Rafique respondent No. I filed Writ Petition No.246-R of 1991 in Lahore High Court for a direction to the respondents 8 to 9, to act in accordance with law and implement the order dated 24-I-1977 in favour of respondents 1 to 6 and to cancel allotment order issued in favour of respondent No.
10. Under a judgment dated 27-4-1994, a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the Writ Petition and set aside the order dated 28-11-1975 and directed respondent No.8 to take necessary action for allotment/confirmation of the disputed land in names of respondents 1 to 6 as successors-in-interest of the Mukhbar. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present petitioners moved an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. in the High Court for a declaration that the said judgment dated 27-4-1994 had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and concealment of true facts. Under the impugned judgment dated 10-7-1996, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. Hence this petition. After hearing Mr. Taqi Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Syed Munir Hussain Shaft, learned counsel for caveator, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is granted to consider: (i) Whether in consequence of cancellation of allotment of the land in litigation in favour of Shukar Din, the same required to be allotted to Ilam Din or his legal heirs as first Mukhbar in preference to respondent No. 10 Gulzar Ahmad and Taj Din etc., whose Mukhbari application against Shukar Din's allotment was moved on 28-6-1974? (ii) Whether writ petitioners Gulab Din and others, now respondents No. 2 to 6 and No. 1, obtained the judgment dated 27-4-1994 in their favour by fraud and misrepresentation and by omitting to implead in their writ Petition the petitioners deriving their interest in the disputed property', from respondent No. 10 Gulzar Ahmad? Status quo to be maintained in respect of the suit land A.A./ M-15/S Leave granted