1994 PLP 498 (SCMR)
MANGTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Bhakkar
| Citation | 1994 PLP 498 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MANGTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Bhakkar |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 498 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 498 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 498 (SCMR) (MANGTA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Bhakkar). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Younus, Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 20‑5‑1992 passed in C.Ms. Nos.1405 and 1406 of 1992 in W.P. No. 1062‑R of 1979). ‑‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioner's excess land beyond that of his entitlement was cancelled on application of informers‑‑‑Petitioner's entitlement was found to be amounting to 200 Kanals‑‑‑Petitioner filing Constitutional petition and subsequently withdrawing same on basis of compromise with informers whereby he was to retain
500. Kanals and 10 Marlas and rest was to be retained by informers‑‑‑Petitioner's civil suit and appeal failed and revision before High Court was withdrawn with a view to take up the matter by an application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑‑Competency to file application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑‑Petitioner's claim to 500 Kanals 10 Marlas of land being based on compromise with private parties, Settlement Authorities had nothing to do with that‑‑‑Petitioner's entitlement being of 200 Kanals, he could not claim anything more from the Settlement Authorities‑‑‑Petitioner's claim under the compromise could be satisfied from informers (respondents) after they had got it‑‑‑Genuineness of pending claim of informers should be of no concern to petitioner once his entitlement was determined and fixed at 200 Kanals‑‑ Petitioner had no concern as to how disposal of units resumed from him would take place‑‑‑Petitioner's application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being entirely misconceived he had made out no case for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 20‑5‑1992 whereby an application filed under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed in limine on the ground that it was time‑barred.
2. The background of the controversy was that the petitioner had received allotment of extensive lands against his verified claim. On the information laid by respondents in W.PNo.1062/R of 1978 (Abdul Samad Khan and Fateh Muhammad) the Chief Settlement Commissioner reduced the allotment to 200 kanals directing resumption of the excess equal to 2243 P.I. Units which was ordered to go to informers vide order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 29‑12‑1976. This was challenged by the petitioner by recourse to Writ Petition No.1062/R of 1978 instituted on 12‑10‑1978. The petitioner withdrew this Constitution Petition in view of a compromise having been arrived at between him and the informers where under the petitioner was to retain 500 Kanals 10 Marlas of land out of 1968 Kanals 4 Marlas of land, and the remaining land was to be retained by the informers. The High Court while allowing the withdrawal did not go into the merits of the case at all. Subsequently the petitioner filed a Review Application in avoidance of the compromise and the withdrawal of the Constitution Petition. This review was disposed of with the following order:‑ "Learned counsel for the parties had stated that the parties had compromised and in that view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition which was accordingly disposed of on 24‑10‑
83. It is stated that the Revenue authorities are not accepting the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of in view of the compromise of the parties. That is exactly what had been done earlier. The writ petition had been disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is so agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. The application is thus disposed of." 3.The petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit on 18‑12‑1985 which failed. The appeal also failed and the civil revision in the High Court was withdrawn with a view to take up the matter by an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. In moving this petition under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner contended that the informers had no claim at all which required the settlement nor was his original allotment in excess. He wanted the entire matter to be reopened for his benefit. According to him, even the agreed area of land to the extent of 500 Kanals 10 Marlas has not been given by the Settlement authorities to him.
5. So far as his claim to 500 Kanals 10 Marlas of land is concerned it is based on a compromise with the private parties, the Rehabilitation authorities playing no part in it. His entitlement being of 200 Kanals, he cannot claim anything more from the Settlement Authorities. If he wants to claim under the compromise, then he has to get it from the respondents/informers, after they have got it.
6. As regards the genuineness of the pending claim of the informers, that should be no concern of the petitioner once his entitlement is determined and fixed at 200 Kanals. How the disposal of the resumed units takes place is not his concern.
7. In the circumstances, the application of the petitioner under section 12(2) of toe Code of Civil Procedure was entirely misconceived. No case is made out' for interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1903/S Leave refused.