1975 PLP 73 (SCMR)
Mst. FAZAL BIBI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION AUTHORITIES AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 73 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1939 C. M. L. A.'s No. 64- |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. FAZAL BIBI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION AUTHORITIES AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1939 [C. M. L. A.'s No. 64] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 73 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1939 [C. M. L. A.'s No. 64] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 73 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1939 C. M. L. A.'s No. 64- bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 73 (SCMR) (Mst. FAZAL BIBI-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION AUTHORITIES AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ajmal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 14th October 1974.
- Khurshid Ahmad Chaudhri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
- Ajmal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 12th March 1974, in Writ Petition No. 26/R of 1966). -- Para. 19 and Settlement Scheme for sale of resumed land, para. 47, read with memo. No. 8303-59-392 R(P) dated 25-1-1960-Sale of resumed land -Petitioner acquiring land on false claims verified in name of her father and uncle alleging them to be alive and holding land in India although both actually dead before petitioner's migration to Pakistan-Not obtaining land in anticipation of succession to her father or uncle-Petitioner, hence, held, not qualified for purchase of land under scheme or memorandum. Khurshid Ahmad Chaudhri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J‑The petitioner claims the right to purchase agricultural land which was allotted to her on the basis of false claims filed by her in the name of her father and uncle. The Settlement authorities rejected the claim on the finding that her case was not covered by the Memorandum No. 3308‑59‑392 R(P) dated the 25th January 1960, which provided that displaced persons whose parents were in possession of land in India may if they so like purchase the land in their possession on certain conditions. This concession was made available to allottees under para 47 of the Settlement Scheme. The petitioner had, however, acquired land on false claims verified in the names of her father and uncle who were alive and in possession of their lands in India. She did not, therefore, qualify for purchase of land in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Scheme for sale of resumed land under Martial Law Regulation
64. The High Court has agreed with the view taken by the Settlement authorities and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Leave to appeal is asked for now on grounds which are not tenable in law or facts. It has been rightly held by the Settlement authorities that the petitioner is not qualified to purchase the land under the aforesaid memorandum dated the January 25, 1960. Her case was also not covered by the later memorandum issued on January 8, 1961, which dealt with the case of displaced persons who were allotted lands in anticipation of their succession to lands in possession of their parents in India. It is obvious that the petitioner did not obtain land in anticipation of succession to her father and uncle. Indeed, she represented that both her father and uncle had died when she migrated to Pakistan. We, accordingly, find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Settlement authorities and dismiss the petition for leave to appeal. Petition dismissed.