1989 PLP 1060 (SCMR)
NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector, Vehari and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1060 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector, Vehari and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1060 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1060 (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 1060 (SCMR) (NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector, Vehari and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 20‑12‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.1797‑D of 1982). Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner's allotment of Ahata followed by his deposit of sale price‑‑Petitioner's allotment cancelled in appeal and such Ahata was allotted to respondent‑‑Petitioner's appeal against such order failed as also his Civil suit upto High Court in revision‑‑Appeal against Collector's order whereby he had allotted Ahata to petitioner, having been accepted and petitioner having failed to successfully assail the appellate order, could not have succeeded before Civil Court on basis of argument that by depositing payment in pursuance of allotment order, he had acquired a vested right‑‑Petitioner thus having no case to succeed before Civil Court and his revision having rightly been dismissed by High Court, leave to appeal was refused
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioner/plaintiffs civil revision, arising out of the claim for the allotment/sale of the Ahata in dispute by the Collector, having been dismissed by the High Court. he has sought leave to appeal. The allotment in favour of the petitioner, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was followed by the deposit of sale price, Notwithstanding the same, respondent No.2 filed an appeal against the allotment which was allowed, and the Ahata was allotted to him. The petitioner's challenge to that allotment having failed before the Colony Revenue Authorities, he filed civil suit claiming that he having become absolute owner, the Ahata could not be allotted to the respondent No.2. It was dismissed mainly on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. However, his appeal and civil revision were also dismissed. He has now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by making payment of the price in pursuance of the order of allotment of the Collector, the petitioner had acquired a vested right. Secondly, he contended that the delivery of possession together with the conditions in the Scheme relating to the allotment of Ahatas favoured the petitioner in so far as right to retain the Ahata is concerned‑ though learned counsel also admitted that there are several reported cases against his contention. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not agree with him that in the circumstances the petitioner had acquired any such right through allotment and payment of price; and that the appellate and revisional authorities on the Revenue side became denuded of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the appeal against the orders of the Collector having been accepted and the petitioner having failed to successfully assail the appellate order, could not have succeeded before the Civil Court on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. In these circumstances, therefore, the petitioner had no case to succeed before the Civil Court. His civil revision having rightly been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal is refused. A.A. N‑143/S Leave refused.