1991 PLP 1634 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1634 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1634 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1634 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1634 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioner.
- Rapa Abdur Rahim Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to 7.
- Dates of hearing: 24th and 25th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Respondent offered that if gallery in dispute was found constructed over entire 20 feet length as alleged by petitioner, the entire shop be transferred to petitioner and petitioner accepted that offer and made statement that in case his contention was incorrect and contention of respondent was found correct, his petition be dismissed‑‑‑Local Commissioner after spot inspection reported that gallery in dispute extended over entire 20 feet length of shop and that report was not disputed by respondents‑‑‑Shop in dispute was ordered to be transferred to petitioner exclusively in view of consent statement of parties. Ch. Muhammad Altaf for the Settlement Department.
Judgment & Decree
Rapa Abdur Rahim Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to
7. Ch. Muhammad Altaf for the Settlement Department. Dates of hearing: 24th and 25th March, 1991. The petitioner by filing this petition seeks to challenge the order dated 28‑11‑1969 of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner and the order dated 10‑9‑1976 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments. During arguments on 24‑3‑1991, Abdul Aziz, respondent No.3 made a statement that the version of Muhammad Abdullah petitioner that the gallery extends to the entire 20 feet length of the shop is not correct and that if the gallery is found constructed over the entire 20 feet length, the entire shop be transferred to Muhammad Abdullah. Muhammad Abdullah petitioner accepted this offer and made statement that m case the statement of Abdul Aziz respondent and his counsel is found to be correct, his petition be dismissed. In view of these statements, Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate was appointed as local commission to inspect the spot for reporting to the Court as to the position of the gallery constructed on the shop.
3. The local commission has submitted his report. According to this report (ExA), the gallery extends over the entire 20 feet length of the shop. This report is not disputed by Abdul Aziz respondent as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents. This being the position, in view of the statement of Abdul Aziz, respondent No.3, and Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, the order dated 10‑9‑1976 of the learned Settlement Commissioner impugned in this petition is hereby set aside. The shop in dispute shall be transferred to Muhammad Abdullah petitioner exclusively, as the respondents, by making statement, that if the gallery is found to be extending over entire 20 fee length of the shop, have forgone their claim.
4. The Settlement Authorities/Notified Officer concerned shall issue notice demanding payment of transfer price in accordance with law, from Muhammad Abdullah and on payment of transfer price, the transfer documents shall issue in respect of the shop in question. The transfer price paid by Abdul Aziz respondent and other respondents shall be refunded to them in cash.
5. The petition is accepted in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own cost. H.B.T./M‑2787/L Order accordingly.