1996SCMR450 (PLP)
Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996SCMR450 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. C.J. and |
| Parties | Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVH of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR450 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVH of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR450 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. C.J. and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR450 (PLP) (Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mahtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1994.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Muhammad son of Fareeda illegally got allotted the land in dispute through Bashir Ahmed Qanoongo his relative without notice to the petitioners the fact that the petitioners were temporary allottees in possession of the land. It `vas also submitted that Muhammad was neither temporary allottee of the village nor got transferred his claim m Chalc No.20/F, District Bahawalpur by order of a competent Authority before obtaining permanent allotment of the land in question. It was lastly submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner and duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8‑3‑1966, could not have been set aside by the learned Judges of the Division Bench unless the same were based on misreading or non‑consideration of some important material on record.
- 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Status quo to continue meanwhile
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 7‑3‑1993 in L.P.A. 429/1966). . ‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Land allotted to petitioners on temporary basis was subsequently got allotted by respondent‑ Petitioners' appeal before Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner against such allotment was dismissed‑‑‑ Petitioners, however, succeeded before Rehabilitation Commissioner in revision and land in question, was restored to them‑‑‑High Court dismissed respondent's Constitutional petition where‑against respondent's Letters Patent Appeal succeeded‑‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioners contended that respondent illegally, got allotted land in question through a Qanungo, his relative, without notice to petitioners who were temporary allottees in possession of land: respondent was neither temporary allottee of village nor got transferred his claim in the village wherein land was situate; and that findings of fact recorded by Rehabilitation Commissioner and duly affirmed by High Court could not have been set aside in Letters Patent Appeal unless same were based on misreading or non‑consideration of some important material on record‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions raised by petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek to appeal against judgment dated 7‑3‑1993, of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby L.P.A. No. 429 of 1966 was allowed and judgment dated 8‑3‑1966, of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.106‑R of 1961, was set aside together with order dated 30‑9‑1959, of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur.
2. The dispute in this case relates to land comprising Plots Nos.18 and 19 measuring 161 Kanals and 16 Marlas situated in Chak No.20/F, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur. This land was allotted to the petitioners on temporary basis. It appears that one Muhammad son of Fareeda the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents somehow got allotted through his attorney Muhammad Bashir Qanoongo land measuring 412 Kanals and 12 Marlas including the land in dispute in his favour. The petitioners challenged that order of allotment in appeal but the same was dismissed on 30‑7‑1959, by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioners went up in revision against that order before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur, who vide his order dated 30‑7‑1959, set aside the allotment of the land in dispute and restored the allotment thereof in favour of the petitioners.
3. Muhammad assailed the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner through Writ Petition No.106‑R/1961, which was dismissed on 8‑3‑1966, by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. He did not feel satisfied with the aforementioned orders passed against him and preferred L.P.A. No.429 of 1966, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 7‑3‑1993, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Muhammad son of Fareeda illegally got allotted the land in dispute through Bashir Ahmed Qanoongo his relative without notice to the petitioners the fact that the petitioners were temporary allottees in possession of the land. It `vas also submitted that Muhammad was neither temporary allottee of the village nor got transferred his claim m Chalc No.20/F, District Bahawalpur by order of a competent Authority before obtaining permanent allotment of the land in question. It was lastly submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner and duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8‑3‑1966, could not have been set aside by the learned Judges of the Division Bench unless the same were based on misreading or non‑consideration of some important material on record.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Status quo to continue meanwhile A.A./Z‑184/S Leave granted.