2002 PLP 1413 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/NOTIFIED OFFICER and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1413 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/NOTIFIED OFFICER and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1413 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1413 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1413 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/NOTIFIED OFFICER and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑1‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 13‑R of 1993). Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑ Mukhbari application after repeal of Settlement Laws ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer on Mukhbari application made in year 1976 passed order under Ss. 10 & 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 cancelling the allotment of claim‑holders‑‑ Constitutional petition filed against cancellation order was dismissed by High Court‑‑‑Contention of petitioners was that Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain Mukhbari application in year 1976 after repeal of Settlement Laws as it was not a case of pending proceedings; and that Settlement Authorities under Ss. 10 & 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, could not question validity or correctness of order of Claims Officer on merits regarding verification of claims as per rule laid down in the case of Muhammad Siddique and others v. Abdul Majeed and others (1999 SCMR 2674), unless it was shown that such claims were never registered and verified and were bogus‑‑‑Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine and consider said points. Muhammad Siddique and others v. Abdul Majeed and others 1999 SCMR 2674 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 21‑1‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Rev.)/Notified Officer of cancellation of allotment of land in favour of Ismail having been obtained fraudulently has been dismissed.
2. The land in dispute was allotted against Claim Nos.43403 and 43406 of Ghariba son of Umrao and Bodan son of Umrao, respectively to their heir namely Ismail from whom the petitioners purchased the same.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in the year 1976, a Mukhbari application was made against the said allotment on the ground that the claim‑holders never migrated to Pakistan, therefore, the said allotment had been obtained fraudulently, The Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer passed an order under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 for cancellation of this allotment against which writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 21‑1‑2002 against which leave is sought,
4. It has been, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners:‑‑ (a) That the Mukhbari application could not be entertained in 1976 after the repeal of the settlement laws, therefore, it was not a case of pending proceedings, as such, order of the Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer is without lawful authority as he was not vested the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. (b) That the Settlement Authorities under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 could not question the validity or correctness of the order of the Claims Officer on merits regarding verification of claims as per rule laid down in the case of Muhammad Siddique and others v, Abdul Majeed and others (1999 SCMR 2674), unless it was shown that those claims were never registered and verified and the., me were bogus.
5. The above points by the learned' counsel require examination, therefore, leave is granted to consider the same.
6. The possession of the appellants over the land in dispute shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the appeal. S.A.K./F‑57/S Leave granted.