1986 PLP 2095 (CLC)
ALLAH RA KHI — Petitioner Versus SUGHRA BIBI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2095 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zakiuddin Pal, J |
| Parties | ALLAH RA KHI — Petitioner Versus SUGHRA BIBI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2095 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2095 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zakiuddin Pal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2095 (CLC) (ALLAH RA KHI — Petitioner Versus SUGHRA BIBI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch Muhammad Acxhwnf wahlah for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
Para. 4-A(1)(ix)--Allotment of land for purposes of maintenance- Death of allottee--Consequences--Land allotted to person by Authority for purposes of maintenance only, held, would revert to Authority after death of allottee and could not remain with heirs of deceased allottee.
Judgment & Decree
Para. 4-A(1)(ix)--Allotment of land for purposes of maintenance- Death of allottee--Consequences--Land allotted to person by Authority for purposes of maintenance only, held, would revert to Authority after death of allottee and could not remain with heirs of deceased allottee. Ch Muhammad Acxhwnf wahlah for Petitioner The facts giving rise to this petition are that the land in dispute was allotted to Mst. Mehr Bibi, widow of Hasham Ali, mother of the petitioner, for maintenance purposes on 7th of March, 1960. This allotment was cancelled by respondent No. 2, Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sialkot, on 28th of January, 1970, on the ground that after the death of Mst. Mehr Bibi, the disputed land could not remain with her heirs. The petitioner filed appeal against that order but the same was rejected by the Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order, dated 11th of November, 1971 (vide Annex: 'C'). The petitioner has now challenged the impugned orders passed against her by filing the present petition.
2. It has been contended that the order for cancelling the allotment of land in favour of Mst. Mehr Bibi, was made in the. absence of. The petitioner and without notice to her. It is contended the petitioner was the legal heir of her mother, therefore, the impugned order could not be passed in her absence.
3. It is admitted that the land in dispute was allotted to Mst. Mehr Bibi for the purpose of maintenance only and the name of the petitioner as her dependent was never included in the relevant document. If the land had been given against her verified claim or had been allotted on quasi-permanent basis then the same could be inherited by the petitioner being her legal heir after the death of her mother. In the present case the land was given for specific purpose, i.e. maintenance of the deceased, Mehr Bibi only. After the death of the allottee that purpose came to an end. Obviously the land in that case would revert to the authority which had given the same. In the circumstances, no notice was required to be issued to the petitioner because she could not inherit the property in dispute I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition has no substance and the same is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Petition dismissed.