1987 PLP 419 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BALAN BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 419 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BALAN BIBI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 419 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 419 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 419 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BALAN BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mr. Salahuddin Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6th July, 1986 in Civil Revision No.445 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.10(4)‑‑Suit for possession‑‑Decree in favour of respondent modified in appeal filed by petitioners to extent of respondent's half share in accordance with allotment order, passed by Collector on basis of report made by field staff of Revenue Department‑‑Order impugned by petitioners in revision‑‑Plea raised that respondent not having taken possession of disputed property through Revenue Department, her suit was not competent and she should have filed suit for partition and possession‑‑Respondent having been allowed half share by Appellate Court according to her entitlement on basis of allotment made by Collector on the report of field staff, there was no ground for interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore Nigh Court Multan Bench dated 6th July, 1986 while exercising his revisional jurisdiction. The background is that the petitioners alongwith the respondent were allotted the disputed Ihata in equal shares. The respondent instituted a suit for the recovery of possession of 15 Marlas of land of the disputed Ihata in possession of the petitioners The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal the decree was modified on the basis of the allotment order dated 14th October 1964 whereby the respondent on the one hand and both the petitioners on the other ere each allotted 1/2‑1/2 shares of the suit Ihata. Thus the respondent's suit was decreed to the extent of her own share in the dispute Ihata. In revision before the High Court the petitioners' contention was that the respondent had not taken possession of the disputed Ihata rough the Revenue Department as required by section 10 (4) of the Colony Act and, therefore, her suit for possession was not competent and that she should have filed a suit for partition and possession. It is evident that the allotment order dated 14th October 1964 was based on the report of the field staff of the Revenue Department and according to the same the Collector had made the allotments of the suit Ihata on the basis of that report. Thus the respondent was entitled to have possession to the extent of her share and this 4ras what the appellate Court had done. In that view of the matter there is no ground for interference in the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I./4414/S Petition dismissed.