1988 PLP 605 (MLD)
Mst. FATIMA ZOHRA and another‑‑Appellants Versus SALIMUDDIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 605 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Satan and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FATIMA ZOHRA and another‑‑Appellants Versus SALIMUDDIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 605 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 605 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Satan and Muhammad Aslam Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 605 (MLD) (Mst. FATIMA ZOHRA and another‑‑Appellants Versus SALIMUDDIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Aziz for Appellant.
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 5 and 8.
- Dates of hearing: 13th and 14th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Settlement Authorities on receipt of Mukhbari application from appellant against excess allotment of land to allottee passing ex parte order‑‑against allottee‑‑Allottee moving Settlement Commissioner under O. IX, R. 7, C.P.C. and Settlement Commissioner issuing notice to appellant and suspending operation of ex parte order‑‑Constitutional petition against interim order of Settlement Commissioner whereby appellant was issued notice, held, not "'‑‑ maintainable‑‑Whatever pleas appellant might have, same could be raised before Authorities dealing with that application.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents Nos. 1 to
4. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 5 and
8. Dates of hearing: 13th and 14th November, 1983. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑The case of the appellants is that the appellant No. 1 filed a Mukhbari application on 15‑2‑1974 alleging that Salimuddin, respondent No. 1 held excess allotment. The application was accepted ex parte on 14‑9‑1977 and the land to the extent of 219 units was cancelled in 2 villages, Kot Lakhpat 14 kanals 6 marlas and Bhekewal 8 kanals. It was allotted in favour of the appellant No.
1. The land in village Kot Lakhpat was purchased by the appellant No.
2. On 3‑1‑1978, Salimuddin, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order IX, Rule 17, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order on which the respondent No. 5, the Settlement Commissioner, issued a notice to the appellants and suspended the operation of the ex parte order dated 14‑9‑1977. This is vide order dated 3‑1‑1978. This was challenged by the appellants in Writ Petition No. 596‑R of 1978 which had been dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge on 17‑5‑1978. Hence this Intra‑Court Appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants had vehemently contended that after all efforts to serve the respondent No. 1 had failed the order dated 14‑9‑1977 was passed ex parte. After the period of limitation of one month, the respondent had no right to file an application for setting aside that order and the respondent No. 5 could not for the same reason suspend the operation of the earlier order dated 14‑9‑1977 on 3‑1‑1978.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and submitted that against the issuance of notice the writ petition was not competent and was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are quite clear that against the interim order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 3‑1‑1978, whereby the appellants had been issued a notice on the application of the respondent No. 1 for setting aside the ex parte order, no writ petition could be maintained. Whatever pleas the appellants may have in opposition to the application .of the respondent, they can take the same before the Authority who is dealing with that application. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs. M.Y.H./103/L I.C.A. dismissed.