1996 PLP 1949 (SCMR)
WARRAYAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LAHORE
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1949 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | WARRAYAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1949 (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 1996 PLP 1949 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1949 (SCMR) (WARRAYAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Subhiuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1995.
- Ch. M. Yaqoob Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Subhiuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑5‑1993 of the Lahore High Courf. Lahore passed in Writ Petition No.390‑R of 1981). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Mukhbari application‑‑‑Mukhbar's entitlement to allotment came to an end when evacuee laws were repealed with effect from 1‑7‑1974‑‑‑Record showed that names of Mukhbars who were already dead were inserted in the record after their death‑‑‑Case having already been remanded by High Court to Competent Authority for decision of such points, such order could not be interfered with by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.
Present petitioners purchased the property in litigation from Rao Aftab Ali Khan (respondent No.4 herein) which was allotted to him against his Claims Nos.773 and 774 in District Sheikhupura. Against the allotment of disputed land to Rao Aftab Ali Khan, respondents 2 and 3 (Muhammad Boota and Nazir Ahmed) moved Mukhbari application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land). The Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land) under his order dated 27-1-1981 cancelled the land obtained by Rao Aftab Ali Khan in District Sheikhupura against Claim Forms Nos.773 and 774 on the ground that such claim forms were sent to Hyderabad District and there was no order about the transfer of such claim forms to Sheikhupura District. Such order dated 27-1-1981 was assailed .by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.390-R/1981 in the Lahore High Court. Under the impugned order, learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court remanded the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner/MBR/Notified Officer to go into the question and determine the entitlement of original allottee as against his Claim Forms No.773, 774 and 1004 and to determine if there was any excess area allotted to the original claimant and, if so, the same should be re-allotted to Muhammad Boota respondent No.2 who was Mukhbar, subject to entitlement. With this the order dated 27-1-1981 was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Fence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard Mr: Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record of the case.
3. It is worthy to be noted that the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed with effect from July, 1974 and after said date there was no provision for moving Mukhbari application. It has also come on record that names of Mirza and Din Muhammad mentioned in the Mukhbari application, were already dead when such application was inserted in the record.
4. However, the matter has already been remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who has yet to decide the points at issue. The impugned order does not call for interference: This petition stands dismissed. A.A.IW-141/S Petition dismissed.