1983 PLP 1196 (SCMR)
Khan ZIAULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1196 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Khan ZIAULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1196 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1196 (SCMR)?
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: 1983 PLP 1196 (SCMR) (Khan ZIAULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1983.
- Mian Saeedur Rehmah Fattukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin.
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18-4-77 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 619-R of 1977). -- Arts. 185(3) & 199--Petition for leave to appeal-Plea con vassed in petition already raised in High Court and disposed of Nothing to say further found. necessary in view of observations of High Court petition dismissed. Mian Saeedur Rehmah Fattukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The Settlement Commissioner (Lands cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on a revision file by the respondent No. 2 that his claim had been awaiting satisfaction in village in 1961 and could not have been ignored in order to accommodate the petitioner who brought his claim‑to the said village in the‑year 1970 The order of the Settlement Commissioner was found to be unexceptionable by the High Court and the petitioners' writ petition was dismissed. The have now filed this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the order of the Settlement Commissioner is found to be valid the claim of respondent No. 2 could be satisfied by allotting him apart of the area allotted to the petitioners and the remaining land should have been allowed to be retained by the petitioners. This plea was also raised in the High Court and it was observed that:‑ "No facts and figures have been brought to my notice. However; it is understood that the respondent No. 1 cannot order allotment of a larger area than the one which may be equivalent to the claim of respondent No.
2. In that case, the balance, if any, shall remain with the petitioners, The petitioners may, therefore, bring that situation, authority‑" at all the same, is correct, to the notice of the concerned authority. In view of these observations made by the High Court it is unnecessary to say anything further with regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners on this aspect of the matter. S. Q. Petition dismissed.