2017 PLP 1079 (YLR)
Mst. NAHEED FATIMA and another — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1079 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, J |
| Parties | Mst. NAHEED FATIMA and another — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1079 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1079 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1079 (YLR) (Mst. NAHEED FATIMA and another — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jhamat Jethanand for Petitioners.
- Jagdesh Molani for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 3
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Petition for implementation of judgment
Petitioner sought implementation of judgment passed about 33 years before filing of present constitutional petition
Contention of respondent was that present petition was not maintainable being hit by principle of laches
Permanent Transfer Order had been issued after payment in view of judgment passed in constitutional petition holding that transfer of land in favour of petitioner was valid
Settlement department had to keep the entry of permanent transfer in their record
Issuance of Permanent Transfer Order in favour of petitioner was not necessary
Permanent Transfer Order in favour of respondent issued during the pendency of constitutional petition was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and was subject to judgment of the Court
Suit property had been transferred in favour of petitioner and said transfer was not set aside by any valid or legal order
Subsequent transfer of property in favour of respondent was void in circumstances
Laches could not be equated with limitation and right of petitioner was to be protected
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution was not to be restricted by time factor
Issue of limitation was not attracted in the issue involved in constitutional jurisdiction
Question of laches could be examined but was not to deny the right of the petitioner which had to be examined on equitable principles
Authorities were directed to implement the judgment passed in the constitutional petition by cancelling transfer documents of respondents and issue transfer document in favour of petitioner within a period of 30 days
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1987 SCMR 1119; PLD 1958 SC 104; PLD 2008 SC 663; PLD 2014 Sindh 224 and Javed Mir Muhammadi v. Haroon Mirza PLD 2007 SC 472 rel. One of the legal heir of Respondent No.6 in person.