1991 PLP 1303 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AZAM — Petitioner Versus AHMAD HASAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1303 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM — Petitioner Versus AHMAD HASAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. VIII, ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1303 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. VIII, ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1303 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1303 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AZAM — Petitioner Versus AHMAD HASAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasam Jafari, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1990.
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasam Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 23-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 1339/R of 1977).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Transfer of property-- Petitioner had contended that transfer of shop in dispute in his favour was perfectly valid because respondent had only been transferred an unregistered factory and not shop which was an independent unit
Contention that if the question of entitlement of petitioner to submit Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and his possession over the property was not at all gone into by the Settlement Authorities, the proper course for the High Court was to have had the case remanded, required consideration
Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasam Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Respondents' writ petition No. 1339/R/1977 was allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide order dated 23‑12‑1985 on the ground that "question whether Muhammad Azam (present petitioner), respondent, was entitled to submit a form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII on the basis of the alleged possession was not at all gone into. In case he was not in possession on the date and during the period relevant for the purpose of Settlement Scheme No. VIII the transfer could not have been made or obtained under Settlement Scheme No. VIII."
2. Muhammad Azam seeks leave to appeal against the said order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the transfer in favour of the petitioner of the shop was perfectly valid because the respondent has only been transferred unregistered factory and not the shop which is an independent unit. In any case, if the question was "whether petitioner was entitled to the submission of the form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII", and question of his possession had not been gone into, the proper course was to remand the case as the Settlement authorities had found in favour of the petitioner and there was nothing on the record to show to the contrary.
4. Contentions raised require consideration.
5. Leave is granted subject to furnishing security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000, with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if so required. H.B.T/M‑1228/S Leave granted.