1988 PLP 564 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 564 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 564 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 564 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 564 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R.Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Misbahul Hasan Abid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.1723-R of 1974).
Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Finding of fact-.-Interference with--Finding of fact recorded by Settlement Commissioner and upheld by High Court--No ground existing for interfering with impugned order, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question involved in this case is whether the petitioner had indeed submitted an application for transfer of the disputed property under Settlement Scheme No.VII on 30-3-1965, i.e. at a point of time when the old Settlement Scheme NO.VII was still in force, so that the provisions of the said Scheme and not the Revised Settlement Scheme NO.VII were applicable to his case? The learned Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 11-5-1974 (while reversing the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and that of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner) held that no application, as alleged, was submitted on 30-3-1965, which finding has been upheld by the High Court while rejecting the petitioner's writ petition filed to challenge the aforesaid order of the Settlement Commissioner and by this petition for leave to appeal it is again attempted to be argued that an application for transfer was submitted on 30-3-1965 by the petitioner entitling him to have his case disposed of under the terms of that Scheme. After perusing the relevant record, however, we are inclined to agree with the finding recorded by the Settlement Commissioner and upheld by the High Court that the petitioner had not satisfactorily established that he had submitted any application for transfer on 30-3-1965 under the old Settlement Scheme No.VII. In this view o the matter no ground subsists for interfering with the orders impugned before us. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. M.I./M-341/S Petition dismissed.