1989 PLP 1807 (SCMR)
Mst. DATAN MAI and 5 others Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDARAN BIBI and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1807 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. DATAN MAI and 5 others Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDARAN BIBI and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1807 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1807 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1807 (SCMR) (Mst. DATAN MAI and 5 others Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDARAN BIBI and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ncmo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 9th October, 1984 in F.A.O. No. 16 of 1982/BWP). ‑‑‑5. 19‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑High Court disposing of matter with concurrence of parties‑‑Petitioners' contention wits that notwithstanding the agreement/consent of parties an illegality had crept into proceedings because the suit land being still in the ownership o1' State, was not subject to alienation, except in accordance with the approval of functionaries under S.19 of the Conlonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912‑‑Court having not interfered with the enforcement of agreements its distinguished from alienations, to that extent S. 19 of Act V of 1912 could not operate as it bar‑‑High Court's order having been passed on the basis of lawful award as also on concurrence shown by both sides, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZLJI.LAH,J.‑‑These two petitions relate to the same subject‑matter; they arc being disposed together.
2. While disposing of the matter, before it a learned Judge of the High Court observed its follows:‑ "During the hearing of this FAO, both the parties concurred to abide by the statement of Sycd Muhammad Azim Shah Bokhari, Member District Council, as to whether or not flaliz Mahmood one of the Arbitrators had taken part in the proceedings. In case he stated that he had participated, then the appeal was to he accepted otherwise it wits to be dismissed. Syed Muhammad Azim Shah Bokhari, Member District Council has clearly stated (statement has been recorded on the order sheet) that Hafiz Mahmood, one of the arbitrators had taken part in the proceedings throughout. In this manner, impugned order of tile learned Addl. District Judge set aside and that of the Iearned Civil Judge 1‑Class Khanpur dated 3‑2‑1980 is restored. I make no order as to costs."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended, that notwitstanding the agreement/consent mentioned in the afore‑quoted part of the order of the t High Court, an illegality has crept into the proceedings. According to him, the suit land being still in the ownership of the State was not subject to alienation, except in accordance with the approval of the functionaries acting under section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act.
4. When told, that tills Court has not interfered with the enforcement of agreements as distinguished from alienations, and to that extent section 19 cannot operate as a bar, learned counsel could not press these petitions, any further. In any case, the impugned orders having been passed on the basis of lawful award, as also on concurrence shown by both sides, we do not consider it a fit case for I grant of the leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused, A.A./D‑50/S. Leave refused.