1986 PLP 786 (SCMR)
ALI BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 786 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | ALI BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 786 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 786 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 786 (SCMR) (ALI BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdul. Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Abdul. Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-6-1980, in Civil Revision 983-D of 1980).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent finding of fact- Ordinarily not interfered with unless it suffers from any omission or misreading of evidence--No such defect appearing id the Order of High Court leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑The land in dispute which was allotted to the petitioner by the Thal Development Authority was resumed from his name on 20‑11‑1958, for non‑fulfilment of the relevant material conditions of allotment. The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the aforesaid order but without any success as it was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 11‑12-1979. The appeal of the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 10‑4‑1980 and his revision petition being C.P. 983‑D/80 also failed and was dismissed by the High Court on 30‑6‑1980. It has concurrently been held by all the Courts that the petitioner has not fulfilled the material conditions of allotment inasmuch as (a) he was not cultivating the land, (b) he was not residing in the estate for the last 13/14 years, (c) he did not deposit fees for boring test for installation of a tube‑well, and (d) he did not deposit even the first advance instalment.
2. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel argued that the findings of the Courts below on the matters abovementioned were not correct. The contention has no merit. The subject aforesaid is of a factual nature and it is well‑settles that ordinarily a finding of fact is not to be interfered by this Court''' unless it suffers from any omission or misreading of evidence. We asked the learned counsel to point out any such mistake in the impugned order/orders but he was unable to do so. Similarly we asked the learned counsel to show us any document which may point out that the defaults abovementioned did not factually exist on the part of his client but here again he failed to refer to any relevant material.
4. The result is that this case is concluded by a finding of fact and is not fit for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed hereby. M.I. Petition dismissed.