1976 PLP 17 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN AMD 8 OTHERS‑petitioners Versus CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, DASKA, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 17 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN AMD 8 OTHERS‑petitioners Versus CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, DASKA, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 17 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 17 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 17 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN AMD 8 OTHERS‑petitioners Versus CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, DASKA, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 28th May 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18‑2.1975 in Writ Petition No. 406‑R of 1968). Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑ ‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11‑Cancellation of allotment‑Assistant Settlement Commissioner not being empowered to cancel allotment and impossible to avoid impression of petitioners' securing allotment by improper means and taking advantage of his position as police officer, order of cancellation of allotment, herd, rightly set aside.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑On 30‑3‑1957 Imam Din respondent 4 herein was allotted land measuring 72 kanals 2 marlas in village Chhabilpur in District Sialkot in lieu of his mortgagee rights abandoned by him in India, under paragraph 7, Chapter 11 Part I of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. On 28‑12‑1959 a scheme was introduced for the sale of land allotted in lieu of mortgagee rights abandoned in India. The mortgagees ware required to exercise option by filing MGE forms under Paragraph 7 ibid. On 2U‑2‑1962 the land allotted to respondent 4 was cancelled from his name purporting to be on the ground that he had not filed MGE form. On the same day it was allotted to Muhammad Ashraf Khan (who was then employed as Inspector Police) and other heirs of his father the petitioners herein. Respondent 4 filed an appeal alleging that petitioner 1, had with the connivance and active help of the settlement staff, got the allotment order in his favour ante‑dated purporting to be 22‑2‑1962 so as to create a false impression that the allotment in his favour was cancelled prior to the Government's decision to sell the land to the mortgagees. Respondent 4 also alleged that he had duly filed his MGE form. Respondent 4 appeal was dismissed on a finding that he had not filed any such form. His revision was also dismissed on the same ground. Respondent 4 then file writ petition No. 406‑R of 1968 to call in question the cancellation of the allotment from his name and its allotment in favour of petitioners herein on the plea that the petitioner had manoeuvered with the local staff to cancel the allotment from his name on the false premise that he had not filed MGE form, and that in any event the cancellation order was made by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner who was not com petent to cancel the allotment and therefore order of cancellation is bad in law. On what appears to be a careful consideration of the matter, a learned single Judge in the High Court has come to the conclusion that the cancellation of allotment from the name of respondent 4 by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was ultra vires he being not invested with the power of the thief Settlement Commissioner so to do. The learned Judge also found that it was impossible to avoid the impression that the petitioners had secured allotment of the land by using improper means and taking advantage o position of petitioner 1 as police officer. Accordingly, the learned Judge had no hesitation to set aside the order impugned before him. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length we do not see any reason for interference with the order of the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.