1990 PLP 914 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD alias KALA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 914 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD alias KALA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVI11 of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 914 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVI11 of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 914 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 914 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD alias KALA‑‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Laqa Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 19‑1‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in C.R. No.73‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of property‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑‑No documentary evidence was available on record showing that plot in dispute was owned by any non‑Muslim or was treated as evacuee property before petitioner applied to Settlement Authority for its transfer‑‑‑Plot in dispute having not been proved to be belonging to compensation pool, Courts below, held, rightly found that Settlement Authority was not competent to transfer plot in dispute to petitioner‑‑‑Leave to appeal refuse.
Judgment & Decree
Laqa Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Attaur Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th September, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to a plot of land falling in two khasras bearing Nos. 816 and 81", each measuring about 4 marlas, situate in Jhang. In 1973, the petitioner made a representation to the Settlement Authorities that the said plot constituted evacuee property and on the basis of this representation he obtained an order of its transfer in his favour from a Deputy Settlement Commissioner. On 6‑4‑1977 the respondents filed a, suit wherein they challenged the legality of the transfer. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of Khasra No.816 but dismissed it in respect of Kbasra No. 817 on the ground that it was part of a graveyard. The petitioner as well as the respondent preferred separate appeals before the District Judge, Jhang. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but accepted that of the respondents and gave them relief in respect of Khasra No.817 also. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. It is to be noticed that there was no documentary evidence whatsoever showing that the plot in question was owned by any non‑Muslim or was treated as evacuee property before the petitioner applied to the Settlement authorities for its transfer. Quite obviously, the plot did not belong to the compensation pool and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent to transfer it in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one of the Khasras was part of a graveyard and therefore the respondents could not lay any claim to it. This contention is contrary to the position of the petitioner himself as he had got it transferred in his favour as evacuee property. If it was a graveyard it could not be treated as belonging to non‑Muslims. 1n any event the latest Revenue Record does not show it as graveyard but describes it as a part of the abadi. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./B‑147/S Petition dismissed.