1987 PLP 2104 (SCMR)
ABDUL QADIR and others‑‑Appellants Versus CHAIRMAN, ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2104 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Allotment of land‑ Cancellation of‑‑Locus standi to challenge on basis of judgment to which appellants were not party‑‑Order of Rehabilitation authorities upheld by High Court‑‑Question arising whether appellants, who had not appealed to Supreme Court although a party in constitutional petition before High Court, were not entitled to the benefit of order of Supreme Court‑‑Since no appeal was filed by appellants to challenge decision of High Court, allotment in favour of respondents became final and appellants had no locus standi to challenge allotment which they had allowed to become final, on basis of judgment of Supreme Court to which they were not parties.‑‑Locus standi. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL QADIR and others‑‑Appellants Versus CHAIRMAN, ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2104 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2104 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Allotment of land‑ Cancellation of‑‑Locus standi to challenge on basis of judgment to which appellants were not party‑‑Order of Rehabilitation authorities upheld by High Court‑‑Question arising whether appellants, who had not appealed to Supreme Court although a party in constitutional petition before High Court, were not entitled to the benefit of order of Supreme Court‑‑Since no appeal was filed by appellants to challenge decision of High Court, allotment in favour of respondents became final and appellants had no locus standi to challenge allotment which they had allowed to become final, on basis of judgment of Supreme Court to which they were not parties.‑‑Locus standi. bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2104 (SCMR) (ABDUL QADIR and others‑‑Appellants Versus CHAIRMAN, ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ata Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Syed Zahid Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 5‑11‑1975 in Writ Petition No. 1602‑R‑1965). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Cancellation of‑‑Locus standi to challenge allotment on basis of judgment to which appellants were not party‑‑Leave to appeal granted inter alia to consider whether appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Rehabilitation Commissioner's order in so far as order of High Court passed in a writ petition whereby order of Rehabilitation Commissioner was set aside was itself reversed by Supreme Court. Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1966 S.C. 483 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Allotment of land‑ Cancellation of‑‑Locus standi to challenge on basis of judgment to which appellants were not party‑‑Order of Rehabilitation authorities upheld by High Court‑‑Question arising whether appellants, who had not appealed to Supreme Court although a party in constitutional petition before High Court, were not entitled to the benefit of order of Supreme Court‑‑Since no appeal was filed by appellants to challenge decision of High Court, allotment in favour of respondents became final and appellants had no locus standi to challenge allotment which they had allowed to become final, on basis of judgment of Supreme Court to which they were not parties.‑‑[Locus standi]. Pir Bakhsh v. The Chairman Allotment Committee P L D 1987 S.C. 145 rel. Respondent : Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This appeal, by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed on 5‑11‑1975 in Writ Petition No. 1602‑R of 1965. The dispute in this Court concerns Killa Nos. 10, 11 and 20 of Square No. ? situate in Chak No.147/EB, in Tehsil Pakpattan of the Sahiwal District. According to the appellants, these killa numbers were in the temporary allotment of their predecessor‑ in‑interest, Mohammad Nawaz, since 1947, but they were wrongly proposed and confirmed in the names of the respondents No.4 and 5, namely, Mohammad Aslam Khan and his brother Mohammad Akram Khan on 29‑10‑1951. As this confirmation took place in the absence of to appellants and was not acted upon by delivery of possession, they did not become aware of the same until 1956, when they filed a general representation before the Rehabilitation Commissioner of the Province. Mr. I .U. Khan set aside all the allotments of this Chak and of some other villages by an order made on 11‑11‑1956. Several writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957 instituted by the respondents, were taken up together by the High Court and accepted on 15‑11‑1957. The order of Mr. I.U. Khan was set aside. As a result, the confirmations made in favour of the respondents stood restored. By an order made on 13‑9‑1963, formal effect was given by the Rehabilitation authorities to, this position. The appellants thereupon filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 15‑3‑1965 and their revision petition was dismissed 'by the Settlement Commissioner on 18‑8‑1965. In the meantime, several appeals were filed by the interested parties against the decision of the High Court dated 15‑11‑1957 but admittedly there was no appeal arising out of Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957. These appeals were accepted by the Supreme Court by the judgment reported as Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1966 S C 483 and the order of Mr. I.U. Khan was restored. However, the order of Mr. I. U . Khan, dated 11‑11‑1956 was not given effect to by the Rehabilitation authorities, instead the position obtaining as a result of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957 whereby the confirmations made in favour of respondent No.4, were restored continued. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Rehabilitation authorities to give them the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment mentioned above the appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but their petition has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Leave to appeal was inter alia granted to consider whether the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Mr. I. U. Khan's order in so far as the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No.175 of 1957, whereby the order of the High Court setting aside Mr. I.U. Khan's order was itself reversed by this Court in Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1966 S C
483. After hearing Ch. Ata Ullah on behalf of the appellants we are of the view that no interference with orders of the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities, which were upheld by the High Court, is warranted. It is an admitted position that no appeal was filed by the appellants before this Court to challenge the decision of the High Court given in Writ Petition No.175 of 1957. Accordingly, the allotment made to the respondents on 29‑10‑1951, which had been made much earlier to the order of Mr. 1.U. Khan dated 11‑11‑1956 and were restored by the High Court's order dated 15‑11‑1957 passed in Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957 became final. The appellants herein, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the allotments made on 29‑10‑1951 having allowed them to become final, on the basis of the judgment of this Court to which they were not parties. A similar view has been taken by us in Pir Bakhsh v The Chairman Allotment Committee PLD 1987 S C
145. The upshot is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. M.I. /A‑115/S Appeal dismissed.