1991 PLP 1463 (SCMR)
CHUGHATTA — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1463 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | CHUGHATTA — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1463 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1463 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1463 (SCMR) (CHUGHATTA — Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Siddiq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Ashraf Azim, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Muhammad Siddiq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Ashraf Azim, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 19-4-1988 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revision No.708 of 1988).
S. 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Land in dispute was allotted to respondent long before issuance of Notification forming basis of claim of. petitioner for entitlement to conferment or proprietary rights in the said land
Notification not having retrospective effect, suit of plaintiff/petitioner was concurrently dismissed by three Courts below
Leave to appeal was refused. Date for hearing: 24th April, 1990.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Petitioner riled a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights under Memo. dated 3‑9‑1979 and the allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the respondents was illegal. Issue No.6 was framed to the following effect: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of proprietary rights of the suit land or extension of lease? OPP" Learned trial Court found that on the expiry of the lease of one Ibrahim, the suit land was allotted to the respondents on 19‑3‑1979. Notification which forms the basis of claim of the plaintiff is, dated 3-7-1979. This notification cannot be given retrospective effect. Finally, the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree, dated 7‑7‑1987. The petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree, dated 19‑1‑1988. Petitioner then filed Civil Revision No.708 of 1988 but the same has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order, dated 19‑4‑1988. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was cultivating the land since before the expiry of lease of Ibrahim, he should have been conferred the proprietary rights.
3. The contention is devoid of force for the reason that before the scheme for conferment of proprietary rights was promulgated on 3‑9‑1979, the land had already been allotted to the respondents on 19‑3‑1979. The matter is concluded by concurrent finding of fact adverse to the petitioner by the three Courts below. No justification is made out for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./C‑75/S Petition dismissed.