1987 PLP 1025 (CLC)
FATEH MUHAMMAD and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN and 9 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1025 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN and 9 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1025 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1025 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1025 (CLC) (FATEH MUHAMMAD and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN and 9 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hassan and Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑ Application given by respondents against petitioners still under process by notified officer and matter at stage of infancy and no adverse order against petitioners as yet passed by that officer‑‑Constitutional petition dismissed as premature. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑ Application given by respondents against petitioners still under process by notified officer and matter at stage of infancy and no adverse order against petitioners as yet passed by that officer‑‑Constitutional petition dismissed as premature. Petitioner in person. Ch. Muhammad Hassan and Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th May, 1983. This writ petition has been filed at a stage when an application given by the respondents against the petitioners is still being processed by the officer notified as Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.
10. The writ petitioner, therefore, per se is premature as no order adverse to the petitioners has been passed. The petitioners are also contesting the competency of the proceedings before the notified officer as well as on other grounds.
2. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed learned legal Adviser for the Settlement Department states that no adverse order against the petitioners have yet been passed by any officer and the matter is in stage of infancy. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as being premature. However, it may be observed that it will be open for the petitioners to raise whatever pleas are available to them before the notified officer who will attend to the same. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./F‑5/L Petition dismissed.