1989 PLP 1250 (SCMR)
UMAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1250 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1250 (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 1989 PLP 1250 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1250 (SCMR) (UMAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1
- Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑5‑1981 passed in L.PA. No.1240 of 1966). ‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) (Amendment) Act (XXXVI of 1979), Ss.2, 3 & 4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art‑185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contentions firstly that respondent in Constitutional petition before High Court specifically stated that he was aggrieved by the act of petitioner (informer) and adjudication on his application; that respondent impleaded petitioner before Chief Settlement Commissioner but in none of the proceedings before the High Court, in spite of an objection taken by petitioner; secondly that Act XXXVI of 1974 having a retrospective effect clothed an informer with vested right and lastly that provisions of Ss.10 & 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, prima facie governed the matter leaving no scope for exercise of discretion in the matter for the appeal Bench of the High Court on consideration taken note of in Constitutional petition.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑This petition merits leave to appeal for the following reasons: (i) Ghulam Rasul respondent No.4 was writ petitioner in the High Court and the appellant in Intra‑Court Appeal. In paras. 4 and 5 of Constitutional petition he specifically mentioned that he was aggrieved by the act of informer Umar Din and the adjudication on informer's application. He imp leaded Umar Din before Chief Settlement Commissioner but in none of the proceedings before the High Court in spite of an objection taken by Umar Din. (ii) Act XXXVI of 1974 having a retrospective effect clothes an informer p with vested rights. (iii) Sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act prima facie governed the matter leaving no scope for exercise of the discretion in the matter leaving no scope for the Appeal Bench of the High Court on considerations taken note of in para.6 Security Rupees five. thousand. No alienation of land meanwhile. M.BA./U‑19/S Leave granted.