1987 PLP 1820 (SCMR)
QADIR BAKHSH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SANWAL KHAN and 6 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1820 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat, and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | QADIR BAKHSH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SANWAL KHAN and 6 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1820 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1820 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat, and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1820 (SCMR) (QADIR BAKHSH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SANWAL KHAN and 6 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Muhammad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 27‑8‑1986, passed in Regular First Appeal No. 13 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Martial Law Regulation No. 117, para. 5(3)‑‑Allotment of agricultural land in favour of petitioners set aside by Board of Revenue and land ‑granted to respondents‑‑Respondents suit for declaration, injunction possession and mesne profits decreed‑‑High Court on appeal by petitioners, maintained decree except with respect to mesne profits as case of respondents in that behalf was found to be untenable‑‑Judgment of High Court being well considered and no question of law arising for consideration, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to survey No.232 situate in Deh Baro, Teshsil Jhat Pat of District Naseerabad. The said survey number was initially allotted to the petitioners under section 5(3) of Martial Law Regulation No.117 by the Land Reforms Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Naseerabad. This order was successfully challenged by the respondents and the order of allotment was set aside by the Board of Revenue and the land was granted to the respondents on 23rd July, 1975. This decision was challenged by the petitioners before the Federal Government, but their revision was dismissed on 10‑3‑1984. The respondents having thus been granted the disputed land, filed a suit on 9‑2‑1981 in the Court of the District Judge, Sibi for declaration, injunction, possession and mesne profits. The petitioners contested the suit and after necessary trial the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents on 29‑6‑1986 by the District Judge, Naseerabad to whom the case was transferred after the creation of the new Division. Aggrieved by such judgment and decree, , the petitioners went up in regular first appeal in the High Court where the decree passed by the trial Court was maintained to the extend of declaration, possession and injunction, but was set aside as respects the mesne profits as the cases of the respondents in this behalf was found to be untenable. The petitioners have now brought this petition seeking leave to 'appeal from the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. 2. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. In so far as the allotment of land in favour of the respondents was concerned, the matter stood finalised by various orders passed in the heirarchy of Land Reforms Regulation. Therefore, the transfer of the land under the provisions‑of the Regulation was held to be in order. However, on the legal plane, it was rightly found by the learned High Court that the respondents were not entitled to claim mesne profits and to this extent the petitioners have already succeeded. The judgment of the learned High Court is well considered and no question of law arises for consideration in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. M.I. /Q‑7/S ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition dismissed.