1994 PLP 2046 (SCMR)
Mst. ZUBEDA and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2046 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZUBEDA and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2046 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2046 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2046 (SCMR) (Mst. ZUBEDA and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.H. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 10‑8‑1992 passed in W.P. No.1735‑R/1976). ‑‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Remand of case by High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Cancellation of agreement of association‑‑ Respondents' application for cancellation of agreement of association was rejected by Settlement forums on the ground that after repeal of evacuee laws they had no jurisdiction to decide any case which was not pending on or before 30‑6‑1974 and that Settlement Commissioner had become functus officio‑‑ High Court exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction remanded the case to the notified officer for decision‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether , order of remand passed by High Court was in accord with law. 1973 SCMR 624 and PLD 198.2 SC 413 rel.
Judgment & Decree
1973 SCMR 624 and PLD 198.2 SC 413 rel. A.H. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Leave is sought to file appeal against judgment dated 10‑8‑1992, whereby Writ Petition No. 1735‑R of 1976 filed by Haji Rehmat Ali, respondent No. 3 before us, is allowed and the case is remanded to the Notified officer for decision in accordance with law within six months after hearing both parties.
2. Factually it appears that disputed property, which is a shop, was transferred to respondent No. 3, vide P.T.O. dated 31‑1‑1960 and subsequently agreement of association was executed on 4‑4‑1963 between respondent No. 3 and Muhammad Zaman, who is succeeded after his death by his heirs, who are petitioners before us. Consequently, property rights in the disputed property were transferred to the extent of half share to each of the executants and in that context P.T.O. followed by P.T.D. were issued.
3. Rehmat Ali applied for cancellation of agreement of association and his application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 6‑5‑1974 on the ground that it was not competent and applicant could seek remedy in proper forum. His second application was dismissed on 16‑5‑1975 on the same ground. He filed revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 31‑5‑1975 on the short ground that revision petition was not maintainable after repeal of Settlement laws. In such circumstances Rehmat Ali filed writ petition in the High Court, which is allowed and the case is remanded in the terms stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us has contended that revision was rightly dismissed as not competent as no case was pending on or before 30‑6‑1974 and in such circumstances Settlement Commissioner had become functus officio and had rightly rejected application for cancellation of agreement of association filed by Haji Rehmat Ali. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on cases reported in 1973 SCMR 624 and PLD 1982 SC 413.
5. Leave is granted to examine whether order of remand passed by the High Court is in accord with guidelines laid down in the case‑law mentioned above. A.A./Z‑167/S Leave granted: