SCMR 1977

1977 PLP 321 (SCMR)

Sardar HABIBULLAH KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
.‑‑ O. XXVI‑Review‑No error apparent on face of record pointed out‑Authority referred already discussed in order under review‑New question raised but such having nothing to do with review petition Review petition dismissed.‑Review.
Decided Date
Civil Review Petition No. 11 of 1975 out of Civil Appeal No. 285 of 1969, decided on 16th March 1977.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Qaisar Khan and Muhammad Haleem, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1977 PLP 321 (SCMR)
Forum / Court .‑‑ O. XXVI‑Review‑No error apparent on face of record pointed out‑Authority referred already discussed in order under review‑New question raised but such having nothing to do with review petition Review petition dismissed.‑Review.
Bench Members Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Qaisar Khan and Muhammad Haleem, JJ
Parties Sardar HABIBULLAH KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents
Primary Law Supreme Court Rules, 1956 ‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 321 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956 ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 321 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the .‑‑ O. XXVI‑Review‑No error apparent on face of record pointed out‑Authority referred already discussed in order under review‑New question raised but such having nothing to do with review petition Review petition dismissed.‑Review. bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Qaisar Khan and Muhammad Haleem, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 321 (SCMR) (Sardar HABIBULLAH KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Supreme Court Rules, 1956 ‑

Representation

  • Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 16th March 1977.

Headnotes / Summary

(Review petition against the order of this Court dated the 18th of March 1975 in C. A. No. 285/69 from the judgment and order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th July 1966, in Writ Petition No. 2 of 1963). .‑‑ O. XXVI‑Review‑No error apparent on face of record pointed out‑Authority referred already discussed in order under reviewNew question raised but such having nothing to do with review petition Review petition dismissed.‑[Review]. Anjuman‑e‑Ahmadiya, Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, etc. P L D 1966 S C 639 ref.

Judgment & Decree

Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 16th March 1977. QAISAR KHAN, J.‑Sardar Habibullah Khan was appointed as Lumbardar in September 1940 and obtained half square of land as a Lumbardari grant n June, 1950. Under the terms and conditions then existing Lumbardari land grantees were not entitled to acquire proprietary rights in such lands. Subsequently by a memo dated the 20th of May 1951 the then Government of Punjab decided to give option of purchasing the proprietary rights in respect of such lands to hereditary Lumbardars. Such option was to be exercised within one year of the issue of the memo that is to say before the 22nd of May 1952. Sardar Habibullah Khan applied on the 15th of May 1952 for permission to deposit the price of the said Lumbardari land amounting to Rs. 21,

870. Having received the permission by a letter of the Government of Punjab dated the 4th of May 1953 he deposited the amount on the 19th of June 1953. No sale deed was however executed in respect of the said land. In the meantime on the 1st of January 1962 Sardar Habibullah Khan entered into an agreement for the sale of the disputed land to Amir Ahmad and Mehr Nawab. On the 28th of August 1962 the Government however cancelled its order contained in memo. dated the 4th of May 1953 and directed that Sardar Habibullah Khan be refunded the purchase price deposited by him Sardar Habibullah Khan, Amir Ahmad and Mehr Nawab filed a writ petition in the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, praying for a declaration that the order dated the 28th of August 1962 of the Government regarding the cancellation of the sale in his favour was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition was however dismissed by the High Court on the 15th of July 1966. The heirs of Sardar Habibullah Khan who in the meantime had died and was represented by Sardar Khalid Umar and others as his legal representatives submitted a petition in this Court for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted on the 24th of November, 1966 to see as to what was the effect of the decision of this Court in the case of Anjuman‑e‑Ahmadiya, Sargodha v. The Deputy Commis sioner, Sargodha etc. (P L D 1966 S C 639) on the present case. This Court by its order dated the 18th of March 1975 however dismissed the appeal holding that the aforesaid authority had no application to the facts of this case. This is a review petition filed by the legal representatives of Sardar Habibullah Khan against the order of this Court dated the 18th of March 1975. After hearing Mr. Manzoor Hussain Sial learned counsel for the petitioners we have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this petition and that it deserves dismissal. No error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out by the learned counsel. As a matter of fact he again referred to the authority mentioned above, but that has already been discussed in the order under review. He however contended that his client had become a hereditary Lumbardar later on. This is a new question and it has nothing to do with the review petition. The review petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed