1987 PLP 218 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another‑‑Appellants Versus GROUP CAPTAIN SALEHUDDIN and another ‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 218 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another‑‑Appellants Versus GROUP CAPTAIN SALEHUDDIN and another ‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 218 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 218 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 218 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another‑‑Appellants Versus GROUP CAPTAIN SALEHUDDIN and another ‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant No. 2.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 5 to 7.
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 9.
- Malik Maqbool Sadiq and Sh. M. Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986.
- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The perusal of the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and the learned Single Judge of the High Court hardly leaves any scope for us to interfere in the matter. On the question of remedy availed of by the appellants, Mr.Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate, counsel for appellant No.2. admitted at the bar that since the appeals were time‑barred, therefore the Settlement Commissioner was approached on revisional side. This obviously could not be done because the right of appeal, which is a substantive right, was available to the appellants, therefore, under the law if was required of them to have first availed of the remedy of appeal, the question of limitation notwithstanding. Since the appellants have failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal first, the revisions were incompetent and was rightly held so by the Courts below. Further, admittedly the suit land stood disposed of by an authority of competent jurisdiction as building site within the year 1963‑64 and P.T.Ds. had already been issued. There is nothing on the record to show that the transfers already made had been cancelled by a competent authority. In that view of the matter, the land in question was not available for disposal and it, therefore, could not be treated as an urban agricultural land and transferred in favour of Shafaat Hussain. On this score too the transfer of the land in the name of Shafaat Hussain as an urban agricultural land was bad in law.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 31‑5‑1974, passed in Writ Petition No. 704‑R of 1974). (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XRVIII of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.12‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Transfer of‑‑Land transferred as building site and P.T.Ds. issued in 1963‑64‑‑Subsequently same land treated as urban agricultural land and transferred in 1969 to a different claimant who in turn sold it to appellants‑‑Coming to know in 1973 about earlier transfer as building site, appellants challenged it in three revisions before Settlement Commissioner which were held incompetent because remedy of appeal was not availed of‑‑Writ petitions filed by appellants were also dismissed‑‑Land which had already been disposed of by competent authority, held, was not available for transfer and thus could not be transferred as urban agricultural land‑‑Subsequent transfer of land, held, bad in law‑‑Appeal being devoid of force, dismissed. (b) Appeal ‑‑‑ A substantive right‑‑Party having right of appeal failing to exhaust that remedy, held, could not seek his remedy by way of revision.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH. J.‑‑ This appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31‑5‑1974, whereby the Constitutional petition of the appellants against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 14‑7‑1973, was dismissed.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of urban agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals, bearing Khasra Nos. 2308/727 (6 Marlas), 2309/727 (1 Kanal), 728 (3 Kanals 12 Marlas) and 729 (3 Kanals 2 Marlas), situate in village Tench, lying within the limits of Rawalpindi Cantonment. This land was initially treated as building site and transferred to respondents 1 to 3 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and P.T.Ds. were issued on 10‑12‑1963, 9‑7‑1963 and 6‑9‑1964. It seems that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 later on transferred the land of respondents Nos.7 to 9.
3. Subsequent to the above transfers, a separate proceeding in respect of this very land was initiated under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act treating it as urban agricultural land and transferred to one Said Muhammad against his verified claim. This transfer was however, cancelled from the name of Said Muhammad and given to Shafaat Hassain against his verified claim on 11‑4‑1969 and R.L.II was issued in his name. The two appellants purchased the suit land in equal shares from Shafaat Hussain vide Mutations Nos. 1817 and 1798. The record shows that somewhere in 1973 the appellants came to know that the land in dispute already stood transferred to respondents 1 to 3 as building site as back as 1963‑
64. The appellants, therefore, challenged the transfer of land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 by filing three separate revision petitions before the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi. These revisions were, however, dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner through his consolidated order dated 14‑7‑1973 and so was their writ petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The perusal of the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and the learned Single Judge of the High Court hardly leaves any scope for us to interfere in the matter. On the question of remedy availed of by the appellants, Mr.Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate, counsel for appellant No.2. admitted at the bar that since the appeals were time‑barred, therefore the Settlement Commissioner was approached on revisional side. This obviously could not be done because the right of appeal, which is a substantive right, was available to the appellants, therefore, under the law if was required of them to have first availed of the remedy of appeal, the question of limitation notwithstanding. Since the appellants have failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal first, the revisions were incompetent and was rightly held so by the Courts below. Further, admittedly the suit land stood disposed of by an authority of competent jurisdiction as building site within the year 1963‑64 and P.T.Ds. had already been issued. There is nothing on the record to show that the transfers already made had been cancelled by a competent authority. In that view of the matter, the land in question was not available for disposal and it, therefore, could not be treated as an urban agricultural land and transferred in favour of Shafaat Hussain. On this score too the transfer of the land in the name of Shafaat Hussain as an urban agricultural land was bad in law. 5.Finding no force, this appeal is dismissed with no order is to costs. M.I. Appeal dismissed.