1983 PLP 1090 (SCMR)
ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, A. D. C. (G),
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1090 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, A. D. C. (G), |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1090 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1090 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1090 (SCMR) (ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, A. D. C. (G),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1983.
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-8-1976).
Art. 185 (3)-Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10-Mukhbari application against dead person-Points not pressed before High Court-Case not fit for grant of leave to appeal by permitting petitioner to urge new points before Supreme Court Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioners filed a mukhbari application in a land settlement matter but failed before the relevant authorities because it was filed against dead person, namely, Hasan Ali. They attempted to bring on record the legal representatives of the dead person after the repeal of the relevant law. They sought relief from the High Court in its writ juris diction and the same having been dismissed, they have sought leave to appeal for which learned caunsel has urged two points : (1) that a separate application against the sons of Hassan Ali was filed by the same petitioners before the authorities ; therefore, the Mukhbari proceeding could proceed on this other application, and (ii) that it was not necessary for the peti tioners in their Mukhbari application to implead any person, if it was suffi ciently made clear as to which allotment was under challenge. None of these points were pressed before the learned Judge he High Court. It is mentioned in the order, dated 224‑1975 impugned be High Court that Hassan Ali had died nearly 15 years earlier. That being so we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal by permitting the petitioners to urge new points. This petition accordingly is dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.