1994 PLP 364 (CLC)
NAWAB BIBI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 364 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAWAB BIBI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 364 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 364 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 364 (CLC) (NAWAB BIBI — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
- 2. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has argued that the land in question having been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the. petitioner as J&K refugee could not have been cancelled and resumed under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in view of law declared in case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 154).
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 11
Jammu and Kashmir refugee
Allotment of land- Cancellation of
Land in dispute which was allotted to its allottee as Jammu and Kashmir refugee, could not have been cancelled or resumed under Sections 10 & 11 of the Act
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmad Khan and others PLID 1991 S C L54 ref. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. Ilam Din predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was a displaced person from J & K State and was allotted 72 Kanals 8 Marlas of land in village Talwandi Bhindran, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot. On the basis of application filed under Sections 10 & 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Ad, 1958 this land was cancelled from the name of the allottee vide order dated 29-4-1975. This order was challenged in review by the petitioner's father. Review petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The case was remanded in Writ Petition No. 602-R/75 for fresh decision by this Court vide order dated 2-6-1980. The respondent No.l vide order dated 3-i1-1982 decided the Mukhbari application filed by respondents No.l and 2 and resumed the land in favour of the Federal Government. This order has been challenged through this Constitutional Petition.
2. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has argued that the land in question having been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the. petitioner as J&K refugee could not have been cancelled and resumed under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in view of law declared in case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 154).
3. None has appeared to oppose this writ petition.
4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. Admittedly the land was allotted to the petitioners predecessor in interest as J&K refugee, therefore, it could not have been either cancelled or resumed under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in view of the law declared in case of `Ghulam Muhammad' referred to supra. The petitioner being real daughter of the deceased is entitled to inherit this land, hence, the impugned order is illegal and without lawful authority. Resultantly, this writ petition is accepted. The impugned order is declared to be illegal, void and is set aside and the land in dispute is restored to the petitioner. H.B.T./N-177/L Petition accepted.