1991 PLP 388 (SCMR)
ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G) D.S.C. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 388 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G) D.S.C. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
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 1991 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 388 (SCMR) (ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G) D.S.C. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Rana M.A. Qadri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 3-11-1986 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.356/R of 1986).
Ss. 10 & 11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petitioner's allotment of land was not considered as genuine by Settlement Authorities as also by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction
Settlement Authority had discussed threadbare the reasons which weighed with it in arriving at the finding that petitioner's allotment was not genuine
Reasons given by said Authority in arriving at the finding did not appear to be perverse or erroneous
High Court was thus correct in holding that question whether petitioner's allotment was genuine or not, was a question of fact which had been decided by the Settlement Authority on a proper evaluation of material before it and that therefore, no interference was called for
Nothing was pointed out to interfere with the finding of High Court
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J: ‑ This is a petition filed by Zaheer Ahmad Khan petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑11‑1986 dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.356‑R/1986 filed by him.
2. The petitioner challenged the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, dated 22‑9‑1986 holding the petitioner's allotment as not genuine in writ petition filed by him before the Lahore High Court. A learned single Judge dismissed the said petition in limine on the ground that the question whether the petitioner's allotment was genuine or not was a question of fact, which had been decided by the Tribunal on the evaluation of the material on the record, including the statement of one Mr. Khalid Mahmood, and that therefore, the High Court did not consider it to be a 6t case for interference.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the detailed statement of Mr. Khalid Mahmood, retired Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad, who appeared before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Gujranwala, respondent No.1, where he categorically stated on oath that the land was confirmed by him on 28‑3‑1973 as Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) and his signatures on the `Khatas' were genuine and that he had seen the original record, which was with the Settlement Department, when he had made his confirmation, were not taken into consideration by the learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whilst dismissing the writ petition. It is further submitted that there was sufficient material on the file to prove the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
4. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, respondent No.1, discussed threadbare the reasons which weighed with him in arriving at the finding that the petitioner's allotment was not genuine. The said officer also had the statement of Mr. Khalid Mahmood before him. The reasons given by the said officer in arriving at the finding, which he did, do not appear to be perverse or erroneous. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge was correct in holding that the question whether the petitioner's allotment was genuine or not, was a question of fact which had been decided by the Tribunal on a proper evaluation of the material before him and that, therefore, no interference was called for.
5. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. This petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./Z‑108/S Leave refused.