1989 PLP 1138 (SCMR)
Sufi GHULAM MOHYUDDIN and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JHELUM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1138 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Sufi GHULAM MOHYUDDIN and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JHELUM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1138 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1138 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1138 (SCMR) (Sufi GHULAM MOHYUDDIN and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JHELUM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Counsel for petitioners stating that in spite of his best efforts, he had not been able to contact the petitioners‑‑Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Authorities had passed order cancelling the land in dispute on the ground‑of fraud and stated that petitions as such had become in fructuous‑‑Petitions dismissed as having become in fructuous.
- Ch. Ata Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- S.M. Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th July, 1988.
- GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Ch, Ata Ullah, Advocate, on behalf of Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate, who is counsel in these cases submits that in spite of best efforts, the counsel has not been able to contact the petitioners.
- Sh. Muhammad Nasim, Advocate, appearing for the respondent in all the cases submits that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has passed an order cancelling the land in dispute on the ground of fraud. He submits that these petitions as such have become in fructuous.
- In view of the submission of learned counsel for respondent these petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 15‑12‑1980 in LCA. No.286/79).
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Ch, Ata Ullah, Advocate, on behalf of Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate, who is counsel in these cases submits that in spite of best efforts, the counsel has not been able to contact the petitioners. Sh. Muhammad Nasim, Advocate, appearing for the respondent in all the cases submits that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has passed an order cancelling the land in dispute on the ground of fraud. He submits that these petitions as such have become in fructuous. In view of the submission of learned counsel for respondent these petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. M.BA./G‑176/S Petitions dismissed.