1985 PLP 350 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 350 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl-i-Mahmood, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 350 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 350 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl-i-Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 350 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Basit with Ch. Shahid Mahmood for Petitioners.
- Shahzad Jehangir for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1985
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199-Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3(1)(b)--Cancellation of allotment by notified officer--Status of bona fide purchaser of such land--Impugned order of notified officer, did not show that petitioners were privy to fraud or bogus allotment--Status of such bona fide purchaser was not in dispute- Such purchasers were served for first time after repeal of Evacuee Laws through Act XIV of 1975 and through citation in newspaper- Authority failed to show that vendees were served in normal course and substituted service was resorted to after such course--However, in view of prayer and stance of party that they were ready to pay up price per produce index unit to Settlement Authority, it was not necessary to go for legal niceties--Petitioners were directed to approach appropriate authority for sale of land under provisions of Act XIV of 1975--Authority was directed to deal with request of petitioners--In case petitioners were found to be entitled to benefits of provisions of Act XIV of 1975, land should be transferred to them on payment of usual charges prescribed by Settlement Authority.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition is directed against the order of a notified officer concealing the allotment of a claimant Abdul Majid from whom the petitioners art purchased since the year 1964.
2. It is beyond dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the land ever since the purchase. The learned counsel for the states that he would not be arguing the writ petition on the merits or demerits of the order impugned since his clients are ready to take up a fair stance to pay up the price per produce index unit to the Settlement Department under the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of .Act XIV of 1975 and the scheme framed for that purpose.
3. The impugned order of the notified officer doe:: not show that., the petitioners were privy to any fraud or bogus allotment. Their status as a bona fide purchaser is, therefore, not in dispute. They, were also served for the first time after the repeal of the Act through a citation in a newspaper and in the report submitted by the department there is nothing to show that the notified officer tried to serve them and only thereafter when service in normal course was not possible that resort was made to the substituted service. The citation also has appeared for the first time after the repeal of the Act and that too at the wrong address. There is no written statement filed on behalf of the department to controvert the averments made by the petitioner supported by affidavit.
4. However, in view of the prayer and the stance taken by the petitioners I do nut think it necessary to go into the legal niceties. On, my asking, the learned Legal Adviser fur the Settlement Departments, Mr. Shah', Jehangir has appeared. The stand taken by him is that the matter of the right to purchase by the petitioners may be referred to the A.D.C.(G), Gujranwala, who hats been authorised to deal with such request and that since this was a. pending matter, therefore, there would arise no question of any plea of limitation being raised in opposition to this request .
5. It is now for the petitioners to approach the A.D.C.(G), Gujranwala with a request for sale of the land to them under the aforesaid provision of law. The A.D.C (G), Gujranwala shall deal with, the request of the petitioners and if they are found entitled to the) benefit of the aforesaid proviso and the scheme the land shall be transferred to them on payment of usual charges prescribed by the Settlement Department . The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be however, in the circumstances no order as to costs. A.A. Order accordingly.