2005 PLP 1806 (YLR)
SHARIFAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1806 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | SHARIFAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1806 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1806 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1806 (YLR) (SHARIFAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioners.
- Raji M. Suhail Iftikhar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th September, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 19-A [as added by Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Amendment Act (III of 1951)], S.3--Specific Relief Act (I1 of 1877), - S.42
Suit for declaration-- Entitlement of female heirs to inherit tenancy
Under provisions of S.19-A, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, female heirs were also entitled to inherit tenancies
Provisions of S.19-A, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 were extended to District Rahimyar Khan wherein the land in question was situated through promulgation of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) West Pakistan Amendment Ordinance, 1963
Contention of respondents was that as predecessor-in -interest of parties had died in 1957, rights had vested in respondents prior to amending Ordinance and declaratory suit filed by petitioners was rightly dismissed by Courts below
Respondents had paid instalments of outstanding amount to the Government after death of predeeessor in-interest of parties and had acquired proprietary rights therein after instalments had been paid
Impugned judgments and decrees of Courts below were unexceptionable and petitioners being unable to advert to any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in impugned judgments, same could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Mst. Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 1989 SC 384 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 1989 SC 384 ref. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioners. Raji M. Suhail Iftikhar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th September, 2004. This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 27-7-1999 and of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 28-1-2002.
2. The facts of this case have elaborately been set out in the impugned judgments and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners was that section 19-A had been introduced in the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912 through an amending Act passed in 1957. On the basis of the amending Act, female heirs were also entitled to inherit tenancies under the Colonies Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that in the District of Rahim Yar Khan, in which the suit-land is situate, the aforesaid provisions were extended through Ordinance No.13 of 1963 promulgated on 20-5-1963. 1n these circumstances, it was contended that Bilal Din (predecessor-in -interest of the parties) having died in 1957, the rights vested in the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 prior to the aforesaid Ordinance, it was therefore, contended by him that the declaratory suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the case titled Mst. Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 1989 SC 384.
4. I have considered the cited precedent and find that it supports the argument of learned counsel for the respondents. At this juncture, it is important to note that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 paid the instalments of the outstanding amounts to the Government after the death of Bilal Din and acquired proprietary rights therein after the instalments had been paid.
5. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the impugned judgments and decrees are unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments, which would require interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./S-360/L Petition dismissed.