1989 PLP 1655 (SCMR)
Malik MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus TEHSILDAR (A.R.C.) and 7 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1655 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid 1qbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus TEHSILDAR (A.R.C.) and 7 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1655 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1655 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid 1qbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1655 (SCMR) (Malik MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus TEHSILDAR (A.R.C.) and 7 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanweer Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 23rd .January, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 99 of 1077/BWP). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑Art IS 185(3)‑‑Dispute relating to property which was jointly owned by Muslims and non‑ Muslims‑‑Possession having been transferred of a part of the land in the petitioners could have made inquiries with regard to the interest of the respondents in the entire land in dispute‑‑High Court was correct to hold that it was not possible to accept that the petitioners were not aware of what had happened‑‑Petitioners, if so advised could make use of the ruling in Muhammad Anwar v. Malik Fazal Ellahi 1989 S C M R 1225. Muhammad Anwar v. Malik Fa7zI Ellahi 1989 S C M R 1225 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a writ petition which had arisen out of a dispute relating to the property which was jointly owned by Muslims and non‑Muslims. According to learned counsel the petitioners purchased land in dispute from the Muslim co‑owners; while, it was also confirmed in allotment as compensation to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents' side on the assumption that it was the evacuee part of land in the joint ownership. The confirmation in favour of the respondent s side took place in 19(A). The petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court in 1977 which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought. It has been noticed that tile respondents' side had taken possession of at least a part of the disputed property in 1963. This circumstance should have put the petitioners on notice. Notwithstanding the same, they did not take any action till 1977. In the meanwhile change of ownership look place amongst the respondents' side. It was also held that the confirmation of the land to the respondents' side would tantamount to its partition. Accordingly both on ground of laches and also on aforestated ground, the High Court dismissed tile writ petition. Learned counsol has tried to show that the change of possession took place only regarding one Khasra number while the other remained in possession of the petitioners; therefore, the reasoning of the High Court in this behalf is not correct. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the contention raised 1 by the learned counsel is based on reality, tile fact remains that the possession having been transferred of a part of the land in 1963 the petitioners could have made inquiries with regard to tile interest of the respondents in the entire land in dispute. We agree with the High Court that it is not possible to accept that the to petitioners were not aware of what had happened. In any case the petitioners, if so advised, can make use of the ruling of this Court in `Muhammad Anwar v. Malik Fazal Ellahi (1989 S C. M R 1225) which is to tile effect that when in case like the present one, the specific land is confirmed in favour of displaced persons it tantamount to partition thereof. After hearing the learned counsel we find no i force in this petition. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./M‑826/S Leave refused.