1988 PLP 1690 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1690 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, ,J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1690 (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 1988 PLP 1690 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, ,J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1690 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Walah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Walah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 8-6-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.341-R of 1981).
Ss.10 & 11--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Land settlement--Jammu and Kashmir refugees--Allegations of forgeries and tampering with dates--Consequence of--Cancellation of allotment of evacuee land on finding of tampering with record and forged signatures--Cancellation order challenged--Earlier allotment being in favour of refugees from Jammu and Kashmir, disputed land could not be transferred to petitioners--Finding by Settlement Commissioner that petitioners' allotment was tainted with forgeries also not-displaced- Petition for leave to appeal being misconceived, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to 64 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land situate in Chak No.34‑R of Tehsil Sheikhupura. It was allotted together with some other land on 12‑9‑1963 to respondent No.2 as Jammu and Kashmir refugee. It was confirmed against his claim on 10‑10‑1966.
2. It appears that on 21‑3‑1966, the land in dispute was allotted to one Gama, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. After receiving the allotment, the petitioners moved an application for the cancellation of the transfer made in favour of respondent No.2 An Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the application on 29‑7‑1968. Respondent No.2 challenged the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner in revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner found that the land in dispute stood confirmed in favour of respondent No.2 on 10‑10‑1966 and that by tampering with the dates the petitioners made the record to show that they had received the transfer of the land in dispute on 21‑3‑1966. He also noticed that the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Tehsildar who were alleged to have made the transfer in favour of the petitioners disowned their signatures and described them as forgeries. Accordingly, he accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioners and restored the allotment of respondent No.2. The petitioners challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. Apart from the consideration that the land in dispute could not be given to the petitioners on account of its earlier allotment in favour of a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, there is a finding by the Settlement Commissioner that the petitioners' allotment was tainted with forgeries. This finding has not been displaced. This petition is, therefore, clearly misconceived and is dismissed as such. M.I./B‑64/S Petition dismissed.