1993 PLP 1665 (MLD)
IMDAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1665 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IMDAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1665 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1665 (MLD)?
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: 1993 PLP 1665 (MLD) (IMDAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Yamin for Petitioner. Muhammad Aqil Chughtai for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.10 & 11
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.3
Bona fide purchaser from allottee would be entitled to transfer of cancelled land under the Scheme framed under S.3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.
Judgment & Decree
Ss.10 & 11
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.3
Bona fide purchaser from allottee would be entitled to transfer of cancelled land under the Scheme framed under S.3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Muhammad Yamin for Petitioner. Muhammad Aqil Chughtai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th September, 1992. The facts of the case arc that one Taj Din obtained 711 Kanals of land in village Chandke, Tehsil and District Narowal on temporary basis as a Jammu and Kashmir Refugee: He also obtained allotment of land in village Mutto, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala at R.L.II No.106. Out of this Khata he sold 49 Kanals 9 Marlas of land to the petitioner vide Mutation No.175. A Mukhbari application was filed that afore-mentioned Taj Din could not have two allotments one in village Chandke, Tehsil Narowal and the other in village Mutto, Tchsil Hafizalfad. Imdad Khan the present writ petitioner appears to be present before the Settlement Authority where the Mukhbari application was pending. The learned Settlement Commissioner recorded the statements of different officials and finally came to the conclusion that the allotment obtained by Taj Din at R.L. II 106 in village Mutto, Tchsil Halizabad was double allotment and that the same was cancelled by impugned order, dated 29th June, 1975.
2. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of 49 Kanals 19 Marlas in village Mutto, Tehsil Hafizabad and the same cannot be taken away from him. I find that the learned Settlement Commissioner in his impugned order observed that Imdad Khan the present petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the land in dispute but according to this officer no relief could be granted in view of the framework of the scheme. I am of the opinion that once the learned Settlement Commissioner treats the present petitioner as a bona fide purchaser he in law ought to have granted w relief to him. In view of the finding of the learned Settlement Commissioner regarding the petitioner as a bona ride purchaser the present writ petition is accepted only in terms that the disputed land shall be transferred or sold to the petitioner if he is in possession and the same has not been allotted in favour of any other party, otherwise the petitioner will have no right whatsoever to claim the disputed land. A.A./L-75/L Order accordingly.