1991 PLP 1155 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STAFF
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1155 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STAFF |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1155 (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 1155 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1155 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STAFF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Danish Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 1990.
- Sardar Shaukat Ali Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Danish Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 6-4-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.402-R of 1976).
Ss. 10 & 11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199-- cancellation of allotment
Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction
Land duly allotted to claimant was subsequently sold by him
High Court, however, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, issuing suo motu write set aside allotment order although it was not challenged in Constitutional petition-- Supreme Court while disposing of another petition which was heard alongwith the present petition had already held that High Court could not issue a writ suo motu while deciding a Constitutional petition
Leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and order of High Court setting aside allotment order was declared illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Shaukat Ali Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Dr. Danish Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 4th April, 1990. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The petitioner No.6, a displaced claimant from India, was allotted 42 kanals of land by the Settlement Commissioner ` (Lands) Mr. Zaka Ullah Malik on 1‑2‑1973 in village Bhakewal. He sold the said land to the predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos.l to 4 and to Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner No.5. The order of allotment dated 1‑2‑1973 was not challenged in Writ Petition No.402‑R of 1976. However, this allotment too has been set aside by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 6‑4‑1988 while accepting the aforesaid writ petition. The contention urged before us is that the High Court could not have set aside the said allotment because it cannot, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, issue a writ suo motu. Learned counsel for the respondents have been heard. We have held while disposing of Civil Petition No.334‑R of 1988, which has been heard alongwith this petition, that the High Court cannot while deciding a writ petition issue a writ suo motu and have converted the said petition into an appeal and allowed it. This case is also quite similar. The result is that this petition for leave is also converted into an appeal and allowed. The order of the High Court dated 6‑4‑1988 to the extent that it has declared the order of allotment dated 1‑2‑1973 made in favour of petitioner No.6 to be without lawful authority is found to be erroneous in law and is hereby set aside. It is declared that the aforesaid order dated 1‑2‑1973 is valid, legal and subsisting and rules the field. No costs. H.B.T./M‑1378/S Petition allowed.