1991 PLP 166 (SCMR)
KHURSHID ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR SAJID and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 166 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | KHURSHID ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR SAJID and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 166 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 166 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 166 (SCMR) (KHURSHID ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR SAJID and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S.59‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Allotment of land by Society‑‑‑Initial allotment in favour of previous allottee was cancelled in 1963‑‑ Subsequent allottee was issued certificate of allotment on 29‑4‑1978‑‑‑Agreement to sell in respect of land in question was executed by previous allottee in favour of petitioner on 1‑10‑1978‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Allotment was cancelled from the name of first allottee who challenged such cancellation by filing a suit and an appeal, but without success‑‑‑First allottee's title having been extinguished and orders having become final, petitioner, on basis of agreement to sell could derive no title from the initial allotment in favour of first allottee‑‑‑That having ended in smoke and smoke having disappeared, there was nothing for petitioner to hold on to‑‑ Petition being without merit was dismissed in circumstances.
- Yousaf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch.. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 31st January, 1990.
- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the cancellation of allotment from the name of Amir Ali respondent No.2 was illegal. Sh. Maqbool, Advocate appearing for respondent No 2. Amir Ali supports the petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22‑9‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.1927 of 1986). Co‑operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)‑‑‑
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑ Dispute relates to plot No.181‑B, which was allotted to Amir Ali, respondent No.2, by the District Allotment Committee of the Housing and Physical Planning Department, Faisalabad, in the year 1959. It was cancelled from his name on i1‑12‑1963 and was allotted to respondent No.1. Amir Ali respondent No.2 was informed of the cancellation of his allotment on 2‑1‑1964. Some arbitration proceedings, were taken in which finally the Assistant Registrar on an application of the respondent No.1 for delivery of possession, issued a certificate on 29‑4‑1978 under section 59‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act. This having a force of a decree executable by Civil Court an application was moved for delivery of possession and the Civil Court ordered delivery of possession and the respondent No.1 wag delivered possession of the plot on 7‑1‑1979.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition No.882‑R of 1987 claiming title over the plot as a purchaser from the original allottee Amir Ali, respondent No.2 vide agreement, dated 1‑10‑1978 registered on 3‑10‑1978, During the course of hearing, the learned Judge ascertained facts and found that the allotment in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner namely, Amir Ali respondent No.2 was cancelled on 11‑12‑1963. The certificate under section 59‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act was issued in favour of respondent No.1 to the new allottee on 29‑4‑1978. The agreement to sell executed by Amir Ali in favour of the petitioner on 1‑10‑1978 was of no effect. Further that Amir Ali had challenged the afore‑mentioned certificate by filing a civil suit which was tried on merits and was dismissed. The decree of dismissal of suit was maintained on appeal. The petitioner himself filed a civil suit in 1980 but withdrew the same. The learned Judge held that the allotment from the name of Amir Ali having been cancelled and his efforts to retain the same by filing a suit and appeal having failed, the petitioner cannot claim any title from him. This is vide order, dated 22‑9‑1987. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the cancellation of allotment from the name of Amir Ali respondent No.2 was illegal. Sh. Maqbool, Advocate appearing for respondent No
2. Amir Ali supports the petition.
4. Allotment was cancelled from the name of Amir Ali and he challenged the cancellation by all means ,including a civil suit and an appeal but without success. His title having been extinguished and the orders having become final, the petitioner can derive no title from the initial allotment in favour of Amir Ali. That has ended in smoke. Smoke has disappeared. There is nothing for the petitioner to hold on to.
5. The petition has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. A.A./K‑144/S Petition dismissed.