1985 PLP 1933 (SCMR)
ALAM SHER and others — Petitioners Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1933 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ALAM SHER and others — Petitioners Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1933 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1933 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1933 (SCMR) (ALAM SHER and others — Petitioners Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners:
- Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th June, 1985.
- Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners:
- Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 28-11-1982 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)--Petitioners given land as compensation for their land acquired for Thal Development Authority--Later Authority tried to eject petitioners and pay them cash compensation but was debarred from resiling from its commitment--High Court also observed in passing that Government was not bound by acts and conduct of Authority--Government allowed petitioners to remain in land on payment of difference in cost agreed to by petitioners but Board of Revenue decided to eject them from disputed land--Petitioners' writ petition challenging ejectment dismissed on ground that they could not claim any right against Government on basis of exchange effected by Authority--Order impugned--Held: Matter required further examination--Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The disputed land measuring 560 Kanals, situate in Chak No. 13‑B/MB, District Khushab, had been given to Haji Fatelt Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, under the award made by the Collector on 19‑9‑1955, as compensation for his land acquired by the Government for the Thal Development Authority. Haji Fateh Khan and after his death, the petitioners have been shown as Tabadila Girinda. Subsequently the said Authority wanted to pay them cash compensation and eject them from the land in question, which led to the filing of a suit for a mandatory injunction which ended in the judgment of the High Court dated 1‑2‑1967 holding that Hap Fateh Khan was a bona fide purchaser of the land and that the Authority was debarred from resiling from its commitment and that, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to a mandatory injunction. In passing, the High Court also observed that the Government was not bound by the acts and conduct of the Authority. It is submitted that the Government, subsequently, by letter dated 15‑11‑1976 decided to allow the petitioners to remain in the land on payment by them of the difference of the price to which the petitioners agreed but that the Board of Revenue by its order dated 4‑10‑1982 decided to eject them from the disputed land. The petitioners challenged the decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court but the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 28‑11‑1982 for the reason that the petitioners could not claim any right against the Government on the basis of the exchange effected by the Authority.
2. After hearing learned counsel present, we are inclined to the view that the matter requires further examination,. Leave to appeal is, accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,
000. The order of status quo already passed shall continue. M.I. Leave granted.