1985 PLP 1223(1) (SCMR)
Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus ALTAF QUTAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1223(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus ALTAF QUTAB and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1223(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1223(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1223(1) (SCMR) (Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus ALTAF QUTAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Ahmad Hassan Khan. Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑10‑1978 passed in R.S.A. No. 306 of 1973). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee houses‑‑Demarcation of boundary‑‑Finding of Courts below assailed on ground that certain documents placed on record were not considered‑‑Perusal of judgment showing that contention was not correct‑‑Decision not open to inter ference‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Mst. Ruqayya Begum has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 17‑10 1978, dismissing her R.S.A. (No. 306 of 1973). 2, The matter relates to demarcation of boundary of the bungalows transferred by the Settlement authorities to the petitioner and the respondent. The net result of the litigation is that it has been found by the courts below that the garrage and the servant quarter, which are subject‑matter of the dispute, are situated in the bungalow transferred to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that this finding is not correct, and that the learned Courts below have not considered certain documents (Exhs. P.5 to P.7) placed on the record: After going through the judgments of the Courts below, however, is not correct. We do not, therefore, thin+ we feel that the contention that this case warrants interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force. M.I. Petition dismissed.