SCMR 1978

1978 PLP 160 (SCMR)

ROSHAN DIN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1127 of 1976, decided on 21st January 1978.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1978 PLP 160 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties ROSHAN DIN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
Primary Law Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 160 (SCMR)?

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 1978 PLP 160 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 160 (SCMR) (ROSHAN DIN-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)

Representation

  • Abed Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 21st January 1978.
  • Abed Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • Roshan Din has filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After hearing Mr. Abid Hussain Minto. Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit into his petition. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and the High Court both have held in view of the evidence of the parties that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this Court. Furthermore there was enough evidence on file that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee and in the circumstances this petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30th September 1976, in W. P. No. 1369/R of 1976).

Ss. 10 & 11-Allotment, cancellation of-Fraud-Question whether a person is or is not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee-A question of fact-Settlement Authority and High Court both, in view o: evidence led by parties, holding petitioner not to be a Jammu & Kashmir refugee-Such finding of fact, held, could not be interfered with in Supreme Court.

Judgment & Decree

QAISAR KHAN, J.‑Roshan Din, a resident of Sialkot, got some land allotted in his name in villages Punuwal and Malagarpur of Siaikot Tehsil as Jammu & Kashmir refugee. Noor Din, Nawab Din and Mohammad Bashir submitted an application against him under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 alleging that Roshan Din had obtained the land by fraud as he was not a refugee from Jammu 8t Kashmir. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner after recording the evidence of the parties by his order dated 2‑9‑1976 held that Roshan Din had obtained the land by fraud as ho was not a Jammu 8t Kashmir refugee. He, therefore, cancelled the land from his name, Roshan Din filed a writ petition in the High Court at Lahore against the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) but the learned Judge in the High Court by his order dated 30 9‑1976 upheld the finding of tae Additional Settlement Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition. Roshan Din has filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After hearing Mr. Abid Hussain Minto. Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit into his petition. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and the High Court both have held in view of the evidence of the parties that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this Court. Furthermore there was enough evidence on file that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee and in the circumstances this petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.