2004 PLP 1578 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YASIN and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1578 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1578 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1578 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1578 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YASIN and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A,. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8-11-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petitions No. 243/R of 1994).
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
After having listened to the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, we are of the view that the following points, inter alia, deserve reconsideration:
(a) Whether the entitlement of the petitioners against the verification of a separate claim form No.730 warranted a separate and independent consideration by the High Court and the matter should not have been mingled with the other Writ Petitions heard together, particularly, when each factum of allotment had taken place through different orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner? (b) Whether filing of application under sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 needed to be decided on its own distinct premises? (c) Whether the case of .lie petitioners fell within the ambit of section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 and they were entitled to the benefit of section 14(1-A)(a) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, because of the pendency of the dispute before a Court of competent jurisdiction? (d) Whether the Honourable High Court has properly appreciated various orders passed by the Settlement Authorities? (e) Whether, in the light of positive report given by Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Gujranwala the petitioners were entitled to get the land settled against their pending units and whether the remand in question would prolong the suffering of the petitioners?
2. The above points and few others raised in the petition deserve consideration and thus, while accepting the petition in hand, leave to appeal is granted. M.H./M-730/S Leave granted.