1985 PLP 562 (SCMR)
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zul1ah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ Mirza ABDUL AZIZ through his Legal Heirs‑‑Petitioner Versus Shahzadi TAJ BAKHT and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 562 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zul1ah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ Mirza ABDUL AZIZ through his Legal Heirs‑‑Petitioner |
| Parties | Present: Muhammad Afzal Zul1ah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ Mirza ABDUL AZIZ through his Legal Heirs‑‑Petitioner Versus Shahzadi TAJ BAKHT and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 562 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 562 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zul1ah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ Mirza ABDUL AZIZ through his Legal Heirs‑‑Petitioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 562 (SCMR) (Present: Muhammad Afzal Zul1ah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ Mirza ABDUL AZIZ through his Legal Heirs‑‑Petitioner Versus Shahzadi TAJ BAKHT and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 12 to 17.
Judgment & Decree
Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 12 to
17. Date of hearing: 20th August, 1984. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 2‑7‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a land settlement case, was dismissed. The contesting parties were at the relevant time admittedly displaced persons holding unsatisfied P.I. Units and agricultural land could be allotted against the unsatisfied units. The petitioner although was able to get the majority of his P.I. Units satisfied, sought also the land which had been allotted against P.I. Units of the respondents. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner on two grounds: One, that the order of the Settlement Commissioner treating the appeal filed by the petitioner as time‑barred is unexceptionable; and, two, that on evidence both the parties stood in the same capacity, that is, sitting allottees. The petitioners' explanation with regard to the time‑barred appeal is that he had no knowledge of the order of allotment, which was impugned in the appeal. The Settlement Commissioner gave cogent reasons, which were accepted as valid by the High Court for holding otherwise. We asked the learned counsel to satisfy us regarding the observation that on merits both the parties had almost equal case, was not correct. But he failed to make any reference to any document to show otherwise. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.