1985 PLP 1274 (SCMR)
REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus YUSAF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1274 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Locus standi to challenge‑‑Property transferred in favour of respondents in 1960 and order became final in 1973‑‑Petitioners claiming to have been in possession, to have raised construction over it and to have filed form for its transfer, moved Settlement Commissioner in 1974 and applied for suo motu revision in 1975‑‑There being no justification to interfere with order of transfer after a decade and record not establishing submission of form by petitioners, revision declined‑‑High Court refused to interfere with finding of departmental authorities and rejected assertion of petitioners‑‑Order impugned‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish filing of form lost their locus standi to question transfer‑‑Finding not open to interference‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.‑‑Locus standi. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus YUSAF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1274 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1274 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Locus standi to challenge‑‑Property transferred in favour of respondents in 1960 and order became final in 1973‑‑Petitioners claiming to have been in possession, to have raised construction over it and to have filed form for its transfer, moved Settlement Commissioner in 1974 and applied for suo motu revision in 1975‑‑There being no justification to interfere with order of transfer after a decade and record not establishing submission of form by petitioners, revision declined‑‑High Court refused to interfere with finding of departmental authorities and rejected assertion of petitioners‑‑Order impugned‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish filing of form lost their locus standi to question transfer‑‑Finding not open to interference‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.‑‑Locus standi. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1274 (SCMR) (REHMATULLAH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus YUSAF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing 20th August, 198
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑2‑1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 1470‑R of 1976). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Locus standi to challenge‑‑Property transferred in favour of respondents in 1960 and order became final in 1973‑‑Petitioners claiming to have been in possession, to have raised construction over it and to have filed form for its transfer, moved Settlement Commissioner in 1974 and applied for suo motu revision in 1975‑‑There being no justification to interfere with order of transfer after a decade and record not establishing submission of form by petitioners, revision declined‑‑High Court refused to interfere with finding of departmental authorities and rejected assertion of petitioners‑‑Order impugned‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish filing of form lost their locus standi to question transfer‑‑Finding not open to interference‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.‑‑[Locus standi].
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Jariullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing 20th August, 198 M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The property in question had been transferred on 29‑10‑1960 jointly to respondent Yusuf, his father Toori, and their associate Syed Abdul Majid predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 2 and
3. The transfer was challenged by one Muhammad Akram whose appeal was allowed but the appellate order was set aside in the respondents' revision on 1‑10‑1964 which order became final when a writ petition filed by Mst. Khalida, daughter of Muhammad Akram was dismissed on 23‑1‑1973. The petitioners claiming to have been in possession of the property, and to have raised construction over it and also to have filed form, moved, in 1974, the Chief Settlement Commissioner who on 10‑4‑1974 directed that the matter be taken up in suo motu revision. The petitioners themselves also applied for suo motu revision on 10‑7‑1975. The learned Settlement Commissioner, however, declined to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction for the reason that there was no justification for interfering with the order of his predecessor dated 1‑10‑1964 after a decade and that the record did not establish the submission of form by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 16‑2‑1980 after an elaborate discussion of the contentions raised by them. The High Court refused to interfere with the finding of the departmental authorities and rejected the petitioners' assertion to have filed form, observing in this connection that:‑
"The conduct of the petitioners that they did not pursue the disposal of the forms, if they had filed, for thirteen years and raised no objection when the property in dispute was transferred to Muhammad Yousaf, brother of petitioners 4 and 5, raises strong presumption that they did not file the requisite forms."
2. The petitioners having failed to, establish that they had filed form in time, with which finding there is no reason for interference by this Court, they lost their locus standi to question the transfer made in favour of the respondents. This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.