1993 PLP 2039 (CLC)
Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MAHMOOD AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2039 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdul Manan, J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MAHMOOD AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2039 (CLC)?
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 1993 PLP 2039 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdul Manan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2039 (CLC) (Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MAHMOOD AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Harz Tariq Nasim and Maqbool Elahi Malik for Petitioners (in W.P. 321‑R of 1981).
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem, Bar‑at‑law for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 436‑R of 1961).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 20.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Cancellation of‑‑‑Allotment of land in dispute was cancelled on ground that allottees thereof had obtained land in excess of their entitlement‑‑‑Order cancelling allotment was passed by Authorities without determining correct entitlement of allottees and area which allegedly was obtained by them by fraud and misrepresentation‑‑ Authorities without determining such points could not cancel entire allotment from names of allottees‑‑‑Defective order of Authorities was set aside and case remanded to be decided afresh after determining such points. Hamid Ali Mirza for the Settlement Department
Judgment & Decree
Marlas (2) Churkana, Tehsil Sheikhupura ... 471 Kanals 17 ' Marlas (3) Champel, Tehsil Sheikhupura ... 158 Kanals 6 Marlas. (4) Chak No.8, Tehsil Sheikhupura ... 1134 Kanals 13 Marlas. (5) Village Khung, Tehsil Sheikhupura ... 101 Kanals 10 Marlas
3. It is submitted by Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, learned counsel for the Settlement Department that the impugned order is defective inasmuch as it does not determine, firstly, the correct entitlement of the allottees‑claimants and, secondly, how much area has been obtained by them by fraud and misrepresentation and without determining this the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner could not have cancelled the entire allotment from the names of the allottees. He has drawn my intention to the following finding in the impugned order:‑‑ "No body has even bothered to verify whether the respondents had any claim of their own or not. I am, therefore, quite convinced that the allotments secured by the allottees in all the above allotments mentioned at S. Nos.1 to 5 were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts:"
4. It is also pointed out that the allegations against the allottees were that they obtained the allotment in excess of their entitlement and this was present in the mind of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as is evident from para. 2 of the impugned order. On these basis it is prayed that the case may be remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioners also agree with the learned counsel for the Settlement Department.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that there is a considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Settlement Department. In view of above all the writ petitions are accepted and the same are remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Board of Revenue, Punjab for entrusting it to the concerned notified officer for decision afresh who will determine the correct entitlement of the allottees and the excess area obtained by them and then pass order in accordance with law after hearing all the relevant parties. It is directed that these matters shall be decided by the notified officer l/, within six months. H.B.T./M‑1085/L Order accordingly.