1994 PLP 1635 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 11 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, R.P. CIRCLE No. II, LAHORE and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1635 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 11 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, R.P. CIRCLE No. II, LAHORE and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1635 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1635 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1635 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 11 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, R.P. CIRCLE No. II, LAHORE and 16 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Inayatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.L.A. No. 713‑L of 1992).
- Ahmad Hassan Shah Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C.P.LA. No.713‑L of 1992).
- Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 11 (in C.P.LA. No. 713‑L of 1992).
- Ahmad Hussain Shah Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P.LA. No. 855‑L of 1992).
- Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate .Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 11 to 22 (in C.P.L.A. No. 855‑L of 1992).
- 'Date of hearing: 18th December, 1993,
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑6‑1992 in Writ Petition No. 166/R of 1987). (a) Decision‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Decision which was not inter‑parties was irrelevant so far as parties who were not impleaded therein were concerned. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VIII, paras. 6 & 7‑‑‑Transfer of property in question, by Competent Authority with the approval of Central Government‑‑ Such property forming part of the compensation pool had been validly transferred and no portion thereof, could b4 retransferred by Settlement Authorities to petitioners in Settlement Scheme No. VIII. (c) Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Paras. 6 & 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Part of land in question, was transferred by Settlement Authorities to predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents‑‑‑Petitioner had earlier filed a Constitutional petition challenging. such transfers but that Constitutional petition was dismissed for won‑prosecution‑‑‑Petitioner instead of seeking restoration, thereof had filed another Constitutional petition‑‑‑No explanation was put forth as to why earlier Constitutional petition was not pursued‑‑‑High Court was, thus, justified in not granting any relief in the subsequent Constitutional petition‑‑‑No case was made out for interference with said decision‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the same judgment of the High Court whereby the Constitution petition of Saeed Ahmad Mughal, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners in CP No. 855‑L of 1992, was partly allowed.
2. The dispute among the parties relates to a portion of land situate in the 'revenue' estate of Jia Musa of Tehsil Lahore. It was formerly evacuee property and was sold on 24‑5‑1961 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, also exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, to Muhammad Hussain Comrade for the purpose of shifting his textile mills from a congested area of Lahore City. The sale had the prior approval of the Central Government.
3. The petitioners in CP No. 713‑L of 1992 applied for the transfer of some portions of land sold to Muhammad Hussain Comrade under Scheme No. VIII in 1'970 and obtained favourable orders. Muhammad Hussain Comrade challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities in this regard in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that as the property had already been sold it was no longer available for disposal under Scheme No. VIII. The petitioners in CP No. 713‑L/1992 seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of these petitions it is contended that in an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. 466/R of 1981) the area cited by the petitioners had, been declared as urban building site and, therefore, it could not have been 4 transferred to Muhammad Hussain Comrade. It is difficult to accept this contention. The decision in Writ Petition No. 466/R of 1981 was not inter‑parties; it is, therefore, irrelevant so far as the petitioners are concerned. Apart from that, before selling the land to Muhammad Hussain Comrade the Chief Settlement Commissioner had obtained the approval of the Central Government. There is little doubt that he was competent to sell land forming part of the compensation pool the land both under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (see section 10(2)) and under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. (see section 12). As the land had already been sold by the Central Government to Muhammad Hussain Comrade no part of it could subsequently be transferred by the Settlement Authorities to the petitioners in Scheme No. VIII.
5. A part of the land had also been transferred by the Settlement Authorities to Malik Ghulam Mustafa and Malik Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Muhammad Hussain Comrade had earlier filed a writ petition to challenge the transfers made to them. The writ petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution. Instead of seeking restoration of the said petition the petitioners in CP No. 855‑L/1992 have filed another writ petition. There is no explanation why the earlier writ petition was not pursued. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in.not granting any relief in the second writ petition. Thus, no case for interference by this Court has been made out.
6. For the reasons stated above both petitions are dismissed, AA./M‑1941/S Petitions dismissed,