1989SCMR863 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Appellant Versus Mst. HEDAYAT BIBI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR863 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Appellant Versus Mst. HEDAYAT BIBI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR863 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR863 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR863 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Appellant Versus Mst. HEDAYAT BIBI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate -Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- A.R. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1988.
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate ‑Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court 12-1-82 in Writ Petition No.176/R/77).
Ss.2 & 3--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Ar1.185(3)--Mutation of inheritance challenged by contesting respondent that she being daughter of deceased land owner had been wrongly deprived of her legal share--Such plea dismissed by Settlement Authority--High Court in Constitutional petition, directed Settlement Authority to revise mutation of inheritance so that contesting respondent be allowed a share in property--Order impugned--High Court was not required to record a finding in Constitutional jurisdiction on question of relationship of contesting respondent with deceased land owner--Writ issued by High Court was withdrawn and case was remanded to Notified Officer for a decision on question whether contesting respondent was also a daughter of deceased land-owner Said respondent would be allowed a share in such property in event of such finding being in the affirmative. Respondents Nos.3 and 4: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 12‑1‑82 of the Lahore High Court.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to the property left by one Jhandoo in India. He died during the disturbances in 1947. His son Nazar Hussain filed a claim in respect of the said property. The claim was, in due course verified and he was allotted land in village Manga, District Sheikhupura. On 28‑2‑65 a mutation of inheritance with regard to Jhandoo was sanctioned. In the mutation he was taken to have been survived by two sons, Nazar Hussain and Muhammad Hussain, and one daughter, Mst.Hamida Bibi. On 22‑4‑72 Mst. Hedavat Bibi, respondent No.l, filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner alleging that she too was a daughter of Jhandoo but had been illegally omitted from the mutation of inheritance. Her appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the ground of limitation. She then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed and a direction was given to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to revise the mutation of inheritance so that Mst. Hedayat Bibi was also allowed a share in the property allotted against the land abandoned by her father in India.
3. The appellant who is the grandson of Jhandoo has challenged the order of the High Court through this appeal. His case is that the question whether or not Mst. Hedayat Bibi was a daughter of Jhandoo was one of fact and that it was not open to the High Court to record a finding on this question in writ jurisdiction. He stated that the direction given by the High Court that the mutation be revised and Mst. Hedayat Bibi be given a share m the property had deprived him of an opportunity to show that Mst. Hedayat Bibr was not, a daughter of Jhandoo.
4. The grievance of the appellant is not insubstantial. It was not open to the learned Single Judge in the High Court to record a finding in writ jurisdiction on the question of relationship of Mst. Hedayat Bibi with Jhandoo. We would accordingly withdraw the writ issued by the learned Single Judge and remand the A case to the Notified Officer for a decision on the question whether Mst. Hedayat Bibi was also a daughter of Jhandoo. In the event his finding is in the affirmative Mst. Hedayat Bibi would, no doubt, be allowed a share in the property allotted against the claim of Jhandoo. As the matter is fairly old, the Notified Officer should endeavour to dispose of the matter within six months. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. AA./M‑732/S Case remanded.