1989 PLP 1290 (SCMR)
ABDUL JABBAR OADARI Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1290 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR OADARI Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1290 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1290 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1290 (SCMR) (ABDUL JABBAR OADARI Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Iqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent).
- A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 30‑1‑83 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Intra‑Court Appeals Nos.169 and 170/82). (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l85(3)‑‑Allotment of land‑ Petitioner was allotted disputed land on an incorrect report of Patwari that same was still available for transfer‑‑Petitioner's allotment was cancelled as soon as the true position came to the knowledge of authorities‑‑Allotment of said land to previous allottee was also cancelled being bogus‑‑Contesting respondent was permitted to purchase the land and he deposited the purchase money‑‑Chief Settlement Commissioner on petitioner's application, withdrew the order of sale earlier made in favour of contesting respondent‑‑High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner with direction that the matter be decided afresh‑‑Petitioner's claim to the land in dispute was, however, rejected‑‑Petitioner failed to challenge the order of High Court through a petition in Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner's claim to the disputed land was thus finally stood rejected‑‑In pursuance to remand order of High Court Settlement Authority found that neither petitioner nor contesting respondent were entitled to obtain the land in dispute and that same be disposed of through public auction‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against Authority's order was rejected while that of respondent was allowed‑‑Petitioner's Intra‑Court appeal was also rejected‑‑Petitioner's claim to the disputed land stood rejected in the first Constitutional petition and he failed to challenge the same before Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner had thus no claim to agitate before Supreme Court in respect of disputed land‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 30‑1‑83 of the Lahore High Court whereby the intra‑Court appeals of the petitioner were dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land measuring 197 kanals and 10 marlas situate in pillage Muradian of tehsil Hafizabad. It was allotted to one Ilam Din in 1964. Ilam Din sold it to one Ab‑dur Rahman who in his turn on 7‑12‑1967 sold the same to Amanullah Khan, respondent No.2.
3. On an incorrect report submitted by the patwari that the land in dispute was still available for transfer, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner by an order, dated 19‑6‑73 allotted it to the petitioner. However, when the true position came to the notice of the authorities, this allotment was cancelled on 19‑1‑
74. The petitioner filed a revision petition to challenge the order of cancellation.
4. During inspection, an inspection team noticed that the allotment obtained by Ilam Din was bogus. Consequently, proceedings under section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were initiated and by an order, dated 31‑1‑1974 the allotment of Ram Din was cancelled. Amanullah Khan, respondent No.2, made an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that he should be permitted to purchase the land in dispute. This application was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and in pursuance of the order made by him Arrianullah Khan deposited the purchase money.
5. The petitioner moved an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner protesting against the sale of the land in dispute to Amanullah Khan during the pendency of his revision petition. The Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed the application and withdrew the order of sale earlier made in favour of Amanullah Khan.
6. Amanullah Khan challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. On his own request, the petitioner was also impleaded as a party to the writ petition. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that the matter should be decided afresh. However, so far as the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute was concerned, it was rejected with the observation that if he so wished, he could seek allotment of the other land, not sold to Amanullah Khan, which had been obtained by Ilam Din but had been taken away from him in the proceedings initiated under section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act.
7. The petitioner did not challenge the order of the High Court through a petition in this Court. It will thus appear that the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute stood finally rejected.
8. After the remand the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that neither the petitioner nor Amanullah Khan was entitled to obtain the land in dispute. Accordingly, he directed that it should be disposed of through public auction. Both the petitioner as well as Amanullah Khan challenged the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner again in the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner but allowed that of Amanullah Khan. From the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred intro‑Court appeals which were dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
9. As already noticed, the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute stood rejected in the first writ petition. He did not care to challenge it before this Court. He therefore has no claim to agitate before us in respect of the land in dispute. We will accordingly dismiss these petitions. A.A./A‑456/S Petitions dismissed.