1991 PLP 1891 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) WITH POWER OF CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1891 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) WITH POWER OF CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1891 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1891 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1891 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) WITH POWER OF CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court, Rao M. Yousaf Khan and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th September, 1989.
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court, Rao M. Yousaf Khan and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocates‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 13-10-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petiton No.470-R of 1973).
Art. 185(3)
Order passed by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction based upon position adopted by petitioners themselves before the Court was not fit for interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑Respondents Nos.2 and 3 obtained allotment of land against their verified claims in a number of villages. Subsequently, they sold about 89 Kanals of land from their allotment in Preme Kot of Tehsil Hafizabad to the petitioners. It was later found that respondents Nos.2 and 3 had obtained excess allotment to the extent of 217 units. On their own suggestion the allotment received by them in village Preme Kot was cancelled. The petitioners who were affected by the cancellation filed a writ petition in the High Court. Their case was that the allotment received by respondents Nos.2 and 3 in village Preme Kot was prior in time to the allotments obtained by them elsewhere therefore, the allotment in the said village should not have been cancelled. However, during the course of arguments before the High Court they did not press this point further but stated that they may be permitted to purchase the land obtained by them from respondents Nos.2 and
3. On the basis of this offer, the High Court made the following order: "In view of the above, the petitioners who claim to be purchasers for value for the last 20 years, may better apply to the relevant authorities for action under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. If they satisfy the conditions therein, they shall be sold the land in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of." The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the above order.
2. It is clear that the order of the High Court is based upon the position adopted by the petitioners themselves. This is therefore not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused. H.B.T./A‑652/S Leave refused.