1993 PLP 1353 (SCMR)
Mst. SUMMERI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SALEH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1353 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SUMMERI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SALEH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1353 (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 1993 PLP 1353 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1353 (SCMR) (Mst. SUMMERI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SALEH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all Cases).
- Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by S. Abul Asim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents No. 3 and 4 (in Civil Petition No. 970/1, of 1991).
- Sardar Shaukat Ali, Advocate instructed by S.Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 10 (in Civil Petition No.971‑L of 1991).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 972‑L of 1991).
- Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by AA. Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos3 and 4 (in Civil Petition No.973‑L of 1991).
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 1993.
- Sardar Shaukat Ali, Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain for. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 28 to 30 (in Civil Petition No.970‑1,/1991).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order/judgment dated 28‑7‑1991 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P.No. 821/8, 854/8, 893/8 and 1014‑8 of 1979) ‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Dispute relating to inheritance‑‑‑Inheritance mutation was attested in the presence of all the parties including vendees and their Successors‑in‑interest and the matter was again heard and decided in revision by the Settlement Commissioner‑‑‑No justification was pointed out to remand the case again to start litigation de novo‑‑‑Rightful heirs got their due shares in the mutation in question‑‑‑High Court's order remanding the case for fresh disposal by the Notified Officer was not warranted‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed. Sardar Shaukat Ali, Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain for. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 28 to 30 (in Civil Petition No.970‑1,/1991). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents (in Civil Petition No.970/L of 1991). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 971‑L of 1991). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 973‑L of 1991).
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑This order will dispose of C.P.S. No. 970 .to 973/1, of 1991 as these are connected matters. Relevant facts are that mutation of inheritance No.82 of Nawaz Khan and Sultan deceased right‑holders was initially sanctioned in favour of Mst. Hussani and Leela on 11‑10‑1961 and they were allotted land. After protracted litigation, a thorough enquiry was made, evidence recorded and then mutation of inheritance No.563 was sanctioned on 31‑8‑1963 in favour of Summeri and Mst. Suffadi widow and daughter of Umrao Khan the petitioners. The original allottee Mst. Hussani etc. and their vendees filed revision petitions. The matter was re‑examined in detail and the learned Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petitions vide order dated 31‑6‑1979. The respondents then filed Writ Petitions in the Lahore High Court claiming that they were not heard before. passing of the order dated 31‑8‑1973 though they had purchased the land from the allottees to whom the land was originally allotted. The petitions were allowed by a learned Judge for fresh disposal by the Notified Officer vide order dated 28‑7‑1991. The petitioners sought leave to appeal. Notice was issued on 3‑6‑1992 to the respondents "why the petitions be not converted into appeals and allowed as the vendees were either hit by doctrine of lis pendens or that they had been heard in the matter in the same hierarchy subsequently.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their assistance and the documents referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. Inheritance Mutation No.563 was attested on 31‑8‑1973 in the presence of Mst. Hussani and Leela etc. or their heirs as well as in the presence of their vendees. The matter was further examined on revisions which were dismissed on 30‑6‑1979. Since all the parties contesting the Mutation No.563 including their vendees or vendees' vendees were heard and the matter was also re‑heard and decided on revisions by the Settlement Commissioner, there was no justification to remand the case again to start litigation de novo. The dispute was about inheritance. It has gone to the rightful heirs. No need to drag them on. The petitions are, therefore, converted into appeal and allowed. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A./S‑745/S Appeal allowed.