1968 PLP 1411 (SCMR)
M. A. LATIF AND 6 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Rao FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1411 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. A. LATIF AND 6 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Rao FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1411 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1411 (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: 1968 PLP 1411 (SCMR) (M. A. LATIF AND 6 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Rao FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Mahmood Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Hidayat Ali Tab, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Petitioners.
- Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Respondent No. 1 (Caveator).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
- Date of hearing : 21st June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 31‑10‑ 1967, in Writ Petition No. 869/R of 1967). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) Sch. and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98‑Whether piece of land part of factory auctioned by settlement authorities‑Question of fact‑High Court in writ jurisdiction, held, rightly declined to interfere with order of settlement authority and entering into factual inquiry Petition for special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑In this petition for special leave to appeal, the petitioners' claim a piece of land measuring 6 kanals and 12 marlas as a part of Krishna Cotton Factory, which was purchased by them in public auction held on the 21st of December 1957. The claim has been denied by the Settlement authorities and in the final order made by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur, the disputed land has been held to be agricultural and allotted and confirmed as such in the name of respondent No. 1 (Rao Fazal‑ur‑Rehman). The petitioners' Writ Petition in the High Court has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the land even though recorded as "Baghicha Nehri" in the Jama Bandi of 1946‑47 and thereafter was a part of the petitioners' factory, which has been purchased by them and was included in their permanent transfer certificate. It was, therefore, not competently allotted to the respondent. The question whether the land in dispute is a part of the factory or an independent piece of agricultural land is essentially one of fact on which the finding of the Settlement authorities is adverse to the petitioner. The High Court could not have come to a contrary conclusion without making a factual inquiry which obviously was beyond its scope in writ jurisdiction. The High Court has, therefore, rightly declined to interfere and we can find no fault with that action. If the petitioners think that they can maintain a legal claim to the disputed land as a part of their factory, they may, if so advised, bring a civil suit where the rival contentions can be fully examined and adjudicated. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑In this petition for special leave to appeal, the petitioners' claim a piece of land measuring 6 kanals and 12 marlas as a part of Krishna Cotton Factory, which was purchased by them in public auction held on the 21st of December 1957. The claim has been denied by the Settlement authorities and in the final order made by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur, the disputed land has been held to be agricultural and allotted and confirmed as such in the name of respondent No. 1 (Rao Fazal‑ur‑Rehman). The petitioners' Writ Petition in the High Court has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the land even though recorded as "Baghicha Nehri" in the Jama Bandi of 1946‑47 and thereafter was a part of the petitioners' factory, which has been purchased by them and was included in their permanent transfer certificate. It was, therefore, not competently allotted to the respondent. The question whether the land in dispute is a part of the factory or an independent piece of agricultural land is essentially one of fact on which the finding of the Settlement authorities is adverse to the petitioner. The High Court could not have come to a contrary conclusion without making a factual inquiry which obviously was beyond its scope in writ jurisdiction. The High Court has, therefore, rightly declined to interfere and we can find no fault with that action. If the petitioners think that they can maintain a legal claim to the disputed land as a part of their factory, they may, if so advised, bring a civil suit where the rival contentions can be fully examined and adjudicated. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.