1982 PLP 1050 (CLC)
ANWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. DASKA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1050 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | ANWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. DASKA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1050 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1050 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1050 (CLC) (ANWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. DASKA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
- Syed Dilarvar Hussain for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 19th May, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199‑Assistant Commissioner‑Not competent to allot land to Jammu & Kashmir refugees‑Respondent challenging before Assistant Commissioner order of allotment of land in favour of petitioner passed by Deputy Director Refugees, Government of Pakistan and getting stay order‑Proceedings before Assistant Commissioner, held, without jurisdiction and any order passed in such proceedings 'of no legal, effect.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. Syed Dilarvar Hussain for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 19th May, 1982. For the land in question forms were submitted by the petitioner as well as respondent No.
2. The Deputy Director Refugees, Government of Pakistan rejected the form of respondent No. 2 .on 24‑1‑1978 but accepted that of the petitioner for confirmation of proprietary rights. The petitioner also deposited Rs. 1,530, for obtaining the proprietary rights. The respondent No. 2 in the meantime moved a miscellaneous application before the Assistant Commissioner praying for the review of mutations and for declaring the respondent No. 9 as owner of half of the property. This petition is pending before the Assistant Commissioner but on separate application for interim relief to the extent that the petitioner tray be restrained froth raising any structure, the Assistant Commissioner has granted the interim relief till the disposal of the main case.
2. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Additional Commis sioner but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. It is obvious that the Assistant Commissioner is not the competent authority to make allotment of land to the Jammu & Kashmir refugees. The case of the respondent was rejected by the Deputy Director, Refugees, Government of Pakistan on 24‑1‑1978. It appears that he has not challenged those orders but instead two years later has moved a miscellaneous petition before the Assistant Commissioner for redress of his grievances. The Assistant Commissioner obviously is not competent to grant him the relief prayed for. He is not the competent authority to allot the land to respondent No. 2 or otherwise declare him to be the owner of half .of the property. The proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, are without jurisdiction and any orders passed in those proceedings are of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed with costs. M. Y. H. Petition accepted.