1985 PLP 1271 (SCMR)
AZIZ‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1271 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZ‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1271 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1271 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1271 (SCMR) (AZIZ‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 19‑4‑1981 passed in Writ Petition No. 239‑R of 1981). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Laches‑‑Transfer of property in favour of father in 1960‑‑Assailed by son in 1981‑‑Having knowledge of transfer made in favour of his father, son not permitted to challenge same after lapse of 21 years‑‑Dismissal of writ petition on ground of laches, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1984. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court on the ground of laches. In the writ petition, filed in 1981, he had challenged the transfer of the shop in question made in favour of his father Muhammad Suleman on 4‑2‑1960. It appears that both the petitioner and his father Muhammad Suleman had applied for transfer of the shop but it was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of the petitioner on 31‑1‑1960. However, four days later, i.e. on 4‑2‑1960, the same officer, by way of rectification, transferred the shop in favour of the petitioner's father. The reason given by him is:‑
"Aziz‑ur‑Rehman represented that he filed Form C.S. instead of (sic) mistake. His father Muhammad Suleman is a claimant, who has filed Form C.S. on the basis of allotment of portion of the shop to his son, as such, Suleman is entitled to the portion of C in place of Aziz‑ur‑Rehman his son whose Form C.S. is hereby cancelled. Since this was an omission. It has been rectified accordingly." Later on, there was dispute as regards the evacuee nature of the property which was ultimately resolved the High Court in an earlier writ petition in favour of Muhammad Suleman. After his death, appendix was issued on 14‑5‑1979. The petitioner for the first time challenged the transfer in revision on 5‑8‑1981 and when the same was dismissed for lack of competency he filed the writ petition from which the present petition arises.
2. It is obvious from the observation made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 4‑2‑1960, and there is no reason to question its correctness, that the rectification in the name of the transferee had been made on the representation of the petitioner himself. There is thus reason to believe that he had knowledge of the transfer made in favour of his father in 1960. He can hardly be permitted to challenge the order after 21 years. The dismissal of his writ petition on the ground of laches is, therefore, not open to question. Leave to appeal is refused. M.I. Leave to appeal refused.