1989 PLP 452 (SCMR)
MARDAN KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. BUSHRI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 452 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ., |
| Parties | MARDAN KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. BUSHRI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 452 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 452 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 452 (SCMR) (MARDAN KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. BUSHRI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M.Khan Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Shahzad A. Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1988.
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M.Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Shahzad A. Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-12-1974, passed in Writ Petition No.27/R/1973).
Ss.10 & 11--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Petitioner disputing allotment of land made in favour of respondents--Another similar application by petitioner was earlier rejected by Settlement Authorities--Document produced in support found unreliable--Impugned judgment of High Court being in accordance with law, no interference was called for--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This appeal by Mardan Khan is by leave of this, Court. Mardan Khan laid information before the Settlement Authorities that Mst. Bushri and Mst. Naziri were not the daughters of Mst. Chand Bibi. He further alleged that Mst. Chand Bibi never came to Pakistan. She died in India. Hence the allotment obtained by the aforesaid two ladies vide Khata No.182 of RLII Register of village Wadala Sandhuan vide Mutation No.24 as successors‑in terest of Mst. Chand Bibi was the result of fraud. WRIA Cognizance was taken by Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (1), Sialkot, who, by his order, dated 21‑11‑1969, cancelled the allotment of respondents Mst. Bushri and Mst. Naziri. They filed settlement revision before the Lahore High Court challenging the aforesaid order. The revision was subsequently converted into a Constitutional petition and it was decided as such. The learned Judge by means of a detailed order after considering the case of both parties found in favour of Mst. Bushri and Mst. Naziri by his judgment, dated 20‑12‑1974, which is impugned before this Court. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. He wanted us to take into consideration the document Ex.PA pertaining to the mutation, brought by the appellant from India which, according to the counsel, demolished the case of the respondents. We called upon the learned counsel to first satisfy us about the authenticity of this document but learned counsel was unable to even ,read the stamp on the document. It is not known as to how, when and from where he obtained the document. Even otherwise we do not think this is the stage where we can examine this document. From the order of the H*'jil h Court "f we find that .y this was second application of the appellant under sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. Prior to this, similar application was rejected by the then Deputy Commissioner by judgment, dated 5‑6‑1963. This aspect was also taken note of by the High Court. The judgment of the High Court is in accordance with law and as such calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.I./M‑594/S Petition dismissed.