1991 PLP 1767 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1767 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1767 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1767 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1767 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Marian, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st January 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 24-2-1988 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.19/R/1985).
S.10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199
Cancellation of P.T.D.
Constitutional petition filed against cancellation of P.T.D., was dismissed for a number of objections including delay and laches
Petitioners could not satisfactorily explain delay in filing Constitutional petition which was filed about nine years after cancellation of P.T.D.
Petitioners also suppressed material facts in Constitutional petition which they were duty bound to explain
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J: ‑‑Abdul Rahseed and others petitioners, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24‑2‑1988.
2. The late Sardar Muhammad Khan Alvi, respondent No.2, was transferred Saroop Bansi Engineering Works, an industrial concern with site measuring 72 Kanals 13 Marlas on 5‑3‑1959. P.T.D. was issued later in this respect. The late Nathey Khan (predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners) secured transfer of one Kanal and one Marla of land of Khasra No.169/908 on his B.S. form through order of the D.S.C. on 27‑1‑1962. Later, Nathey Khan moved an application for correction of Khasra number and obtained P.T.D. for the said land bearing Khasra No.465/8,9 Min. Respondent No.2 appealed against the transfer of the land made in favour of Nathey Khan on the ground that it comprised a part of the property transferred to him. Ultimately on 5‑11‑1976 the appeal was accepted and the P.T.D. of Nathey Khan was cancelled on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and that the application filed under Scheme No.VI for transfer of the land was belated and that delay in filing the same was not got condemned from the competent authority. On 25‑10‑1980 the petitioners were ultimately ejected from the small parcel of land. After unsuccessfully moving the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 5‑9‑1983 and 21‑4‑1984, the petitioners finally moved a writ petition in 1985 seeking redress, which was dismissed for a number of objections, including delay and laches.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodgment of the writ petition which was almost nine years after the P.T.D. of the petitioners was cancelled on 5‑11‑1976 by the D.S.C. (Plots), Lahore, after hearing the parties. The petitioners suppressed material facts from the writ petition which they were duty bound to disclose. We see no good grounds for granting leave to appeal. This petition is dismissed. AA./A‑717/S Leave refused.