1983SCMR610 (PLP)
Mst. ZOHRA BIBI AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983SCMR610 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. ZOHRA BIBI AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983SCMR610 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983SCMR610 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983SCMR610 (PLP) (Mst. ZOHRA BIBI AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadr4 Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th March, 1982.
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadr4 Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated the 5th October, 1981 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 72 of 1971). --Art. 185(3)-Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10-Remand-Factual controversy requiring decision between parties - Remand by High Court most appropriate circumstances-Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 5th October, 1981 whereby their appeal was dismissed. The dispute between the parties and the litigation concerned agricultural land measuring about 34 Kanals situate in Chak 38‑R. B., Nizampura Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. This land was allotted in 1955 against his verified claim to Boota, respondent No.
1. On information laid by the petitioners of their predecessor‑in‑interest, the entitlement of respondent No. 1 was reduced and this area was cancelled from his name on 9‑12‑1960 and was allotted to the petitioners on 12‑5‑1961. The appeal of the respon dent and his revision against the resumption of the area on re-verification of the claim failed. He instituted a constitutional petition which succeeded mainly on the ground that "on the uzardari filed by the petitioner the Officer Central Record Room re-verified his claim regarding village Pida Rorhi and his entitlement was restored". An order of remand was passed directing the Settlement Authorities "to satisfy the claim of the petitioner, if any, and if there was any excess area after meeting his demand the land should be disposed of in accordance with law". The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was a remand order and a further examination of the factual controversy in the case with regard to the genuineness of the allotment and the correctness of the re-verification was involved. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subsequent re-verification which was relied upon in the High Court is itself not a genuine document and the decision should not have been based upon it. It has further been contended that as the petitioners have been the allottees in possession of the land for quite a long time, on resumption the direction should not have been to dispose of the land in accordance with the law but it should be given to the petitioner. We find that there being a factual controversy requiring decision between the parties, the remand order was the most appropriate one, for such a factual inquiry could not be undertaken and completed in the High Court particularly so where the genuineness of the document itself was to be examined. The direction that on resumption, if at all it takes place disposal should be in accordance with law is inoffensive because the petitioner cannot claim anything else nor the Courts can direct any other manner of disposal. This is not a fit case for grant of leave and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. Petition dismissed.