1985 PLP 1268 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDAN BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1268 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDAN BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1268 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1268 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1268 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RASHIDAN BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 20‑9‑1980 in W.P. No. 709/R of 1980). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Land settlement‑‑Allotment of land in favour of respondents restored after a decade's litigation‑‑Petitioners seeking to initiate another proceedings by making application as informant‑‑Relevant law having been repealed, application rejected‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that petitioners' application could be entertained under general law so as to treat allotment a nullity, repelled on ground that Settlement Commissioner had no general jurisdiction to make such declaration‑‑Function of department being only for a specified field which includes jurisdiction to deal with pending cases but not to entertain fresh application under S. 10/11‑‑High Court's order upheld‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1984. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20th September, 1980; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a land settlement case, was dismissed. The land in dispute was allotted to the respondents' but this allotment remained the subject of litigation for more than a decade and it came before the High Court twice in its writ jurisdiction. Ultimately the respondents' allotment in question was restored in 1979. The petitioners claiming to be informants tried to initiate another independent proceedings by making an application under section 10/11 of the Repealed Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958. The application was dismissed by a Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the law under which it was made, stood repealed. Petitioners challenged the refusal to the Settlement Commissioner too entertain the application in the High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction and having failed there, they now seek leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has admitted that when the concerned application was made by the petitioners the relevant law under which if could be made to the Settlement Commissioner had been repealed; but he has contended that the Settlement Commissioner could have entertained the application under the general law so as to treat the allotment in question as a nullity. He however was unable to answer the question that the Settlement Commissioner has no general jurisdiction like a civil Court to make such a declaration. Moreover, he functions as Settlement Commissioner only for specified field which includes the jurisdiction to deal with pending cases. He has not been conferred any jurisdiction by the law whereunder he was conferred the power of the Settlement Commissioner to entertain fresh application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958, which stands repealed. And no argument has been addressed before us nor a plea was taken before the High Court that the application was made by the petitioners in a pending case. That being so, the Constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.