1986 PLP 758 (SCMR)
KAISAR SINGH alias SARDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 758 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | KAISAR SINGH alias SARDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 758 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 758 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 758 (SCMR) (KAISAR SINGH alias SARDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Syed Altaf Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 1985.
- Pir Syed Altaf Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment dated 2-10-1977 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.875/R of 1976.)
Art. 185(3)--Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XII of 1957), S.41--Evacuee property--Declaration of--Petitioner, a Sikh by birth, occupying his ancestral land and did not migrate but embraced Islam--Request for a declaration that land was non-evacuee and he had become its owner by adverse possession, rejected by Custodian--High Court refused to interfere--Plea that view taken by Custodian was incorrect and should have been interfered with in writ jurisdiction, repelled as petitioner had failed to prove his adverse possession--Leave to appeal refused.
Art. 185(3)--Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XII of 1957), S.23--Restoration of evacuee property--Petitioner a Sikh by birth, did not migrate on Partition and embraced Islam--Ancestral land occupied by him declared evacuee and allotted to refugees--His claim that land was non-evacuee and he had become its owner by adverse possession failed because of having failed to prove his adverse possession--Leave to appeal--Plea raised that petitioner should at least have been allowed to retain his own share in ancestral land--Held: It appears petitioners had not pressed his case on this basis and that if it was legally possible, he should at least be allowed to retain his own share--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed with this observation.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner was a Sikh by birth and occupying his ancestral land. He decided to remain in Pakistan after the Partition of the Sub‑Continent and also embraced Islam.
2. The land in question, however, was treated as evacuee property and allotted to the refugees. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Deputy Custodian for a declaration that the land in question was non‑evacuee and his plea in support of this claim was that he had become its owner by means of an adverse possession. This plea was, however, rejected by the Deputy Custodian in the detailed order wherein all the relevant circumstances were taken into account. This was upheld by the Custodian, Evacuee Property and the High Court refused to interfere in writ, jurisdiction.
3. Pir dyed Altaf Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended firstly that the view of the Custodian authorities that the petitioner had not become owner through adverse possession was incorrect and the High Court should have interfered in its jurisdiction. Secondly, that even if the above plea was not acceptable the petitioner should, at, least, have been allowed to retain his own share in the ancestral land, especially when he had embraced Islam, continued to remain in Pakistan and was not an evacuee.
4. So far as the first contention is concerned we are inclined to agree with the view expressed by the Deputy Custodian and upheld by the Custodian that the petitioner had failed to prove his adverse possession.
5. As for the second plea it appears that the petitioner had not pressed his case on this basis. However, if, indeed, the petitioner has lost his own share in the property due to his wrong plea and anxiety to get the entire property and not merely his own share nonetheless we feel that if it is legally possible, he should at least. be allowed to retain his own share in the ancestral land. It is now for him to consider how he can get the matter re‑opened to get his share which he appears to have lost, by his own follies.
6. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed.