1989 PLP 604 (SCMR)
AKHTAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 604 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | AKHTAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 604 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 604 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 604 (SCMR) (AKHTAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mubashar Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988.
- Mubashar Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. 1700/D of 1982, dated 11-1-1983).
S.19--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Plaintiff's suit for specific performance was decreed--Defendants revision against such decree was dismissed--Finding of High Court impugned--On facts, concurrent findings were in favour of plaintiff--Petitioner/defendant's contention that property being colony land, suit could not be decreed in absence of sanction by competent authority, repelled--Such limitation as envisaged in S.19 of Act V of 1912 was regarding alienation and not regarding agreement to alienate--Decree for specific performance, therefore, would not suffer from any infirmity in that behalf--Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The petitioners, a defendant side in a suit for specific performance, have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. The petitioners' predecessor in‑interest had agreed to sell the suit land to the respondents side. Originally, it was State land and the allotment to the petitioner side was subject to section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act, .viz‑a‑viz the limitation on the alienation. Disputes having arisen the respondents' suit for specific performance, now stands decreed. On facts there are concurrent findings in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, relied upon section 19 to argue that the suit could not be decreed in absence of the sanction by the competent authority. When pointed out that the limitation is regarding alienation and not regarding an agreement to alienate and the decree being for the specific A performance of the contract would not suffer from any infirmity in this behalf, learned counsel could not advance his argument any further. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./A‑391/S Leave to appeal refused