1989 PLP 1989 (SCMR)
Haji KAMEER and others Petitioners Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1989 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Haji KAMEER and others Petitioners Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Alienation of Land Act (X111 of 1900) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1989 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Alienation of Land Act (X111 of 1900) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1989 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1989 (SCMR) (Haji KAMEER and others Petitioners Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Maqbool Elahee, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioners.
- Ch. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and 6.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18th April, 1981 in Writ Petition No.1894 of 1981). ‑‑‑S.3‑‑Constitution of Pak1stan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner sold disputed land to non‑Muslim in 1944‑‑Revenue Functionaries refused to grant sanction to sale as per requirement of provisions of S.3 of Punjab Alienation of Lands Act Petitioners continued to retain possession of disputed property even after independence until same was allotted to respondents‑‑Respondents were successful in getting the mutation sanctioned in their favour‑‑Petitioners' appeal and revision against aforesaid order was dismissed by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against sanctioning of mutation in favour of respondents was also dismissed‑‑Petitioner's plea, that property in question should not have been treated as evacuee and that for transfer of such property in respondents' favour, a declaration was a pre‑requisite from the Custodian to the effect that it was evacuee property which had not been done, had no force as petitioners had sold land in question in 1944 to non‑Muslim who subsequently abandoned said land and migrated‑‑Such property was thus rightly transferred to respondents as evacuee property‑‑High Court's judgment being correct, no interference was called for by Supreme Court‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18th April, 1981. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners sold the disputed land in 1944 to one Deva Singh. However mutation to that effect could not be sanctioned as the Revenue authorities had refused to grant such sanction as required under section 3 of the Land Alienation Act. Then followed the Partition and Deva Singh migrated to India. However the petitioners continued to retain possession of the disputed property even after Partition until the disputed land was allotted to Sher Muhammad respondent etc. as evacuees. Sher Muhammad respondent applied to the Collector for the grant of sanction of mutation under section 3 of the Land Alienation Act which was granted in his favour. The petitioners thereupon challenged that order in appeal and the Additional Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the sanction should have been granted by him instead of the Collector as required by law. Hence the Deputy Commissioner granted fresh sanction in favour of her Muhammad respondent vide order, dated 9th April, 1973. The appeal and revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order were dismissed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. They eventually challenged these orders by way of writ petition which was dismissed on the ground that admittedly the disputed land had been sold by the petitioners to Deva Singh and thus they had nothing to do with the disputed property. If the sanction of mutation to that effect was missing at that stage it was eventually granted on 9th April, 1973 in accordance with the requirements of the Land Alienation Act. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the property in question should have not been treated as evacuee and that if it could be transferred as such to Sher Muhammad respondent etc. a declaration was required from the Custodian to the effect that it was evacuee property which had not been done in the instant case. But this argument has no force as the petitioners had sold the land in question in 1944 to Deva Singh who subsequently abandoned the said land and migrated to India. Hence thereafter it was rightly transferred to Sher Muhammad respondent as evacuee property. In that view of the matter no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. A.A./K‑110/S Petition dismissed.