1989 PLP 1736 (SCMR)
BAGGU and 8 others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISMAIL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1736 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | BAGGU and 8 others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISMAIL‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1736 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1736 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1736 (SCMR) (BAGGU and 8 others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISMAIL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate instructed by Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 20th January, 1985 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.316 of 1983). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.l83(3)‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Controversy on fact, as to whether land was evacuee or it belonged to the Government and was transferred to respondent, was resolved by the findings rendered by two higher Courts in favour of respondent‑‑No documentary evidence had been relied upon by petitioner to show otherwise‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. (b) Settlement Scheme No.VlI ‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Record not showing that property was evacuee and for that reason it stood transferred to petitioners on account of undisputed possession‑‑No reference could be made to Custodian Authorities unless there was prima facie case based on reasonable material‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by defendant's side in a suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit for possession of a village site; which was dismissed by the trial Court. Respondent/plaintiff's appeal was allowed and the appellate judgment was affirmed by the High Court in petitioners' Civil Revision which as stated above, was dismissed. Learned counsel has stated that as against the respondent's case that he had permitted the defendant to occupy the disputed land for a year only, the petitioners' defence was that they being in possession thereof since 1947 and the land being evacuee had become owner automatically under Settlement Scheme No.VII He further stated that the specific contest between the parties was on an additional plea raised from the respondent's side that the land in dispute was not evacuee and that it being Government property had been sold to him while the petitioners' insistence was that it was evacuee property which stood transferred to them. The controversy on fact, as to whether, the land was evacuee or it belonged to the Government and was transferred to the respondent, was resolved by, the findings of fact rendered by the two higher Courts in favour of the respondent /plaintiff. No documentary evidence has been relied upon to show otherwise. Learned counsel has tried to rely on two circumstances as favouring the petitioners. One, that the property was not in possession of the respondent from 1947 to 1977 and secondly, that a question having been raised that it was evacuee property reference should have been made to the Custodian Authorities. The first question raised by the learned counsel again relates to the findings of fact. As already noted there is nothing on the record to show that the property was evacuee and for that reason it stood transferred to the petitioners' side under Settlement Scheme No.VII on account of undisputed possession. Regarding reference, suffice it to say that there should be some prima facie, case B based on reasonable material to ask for such relief. When questioned whether there is any material on the basis of which such a reference would at least, prima facie, become necessary, learned counsel answered in the negative. In the light of what has been stated above, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./B‑III/S Leave refused.