1989 PLP 1460 (SCMR)
LASHKAR ALI and others Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1460 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | LASHKAR ALI and others Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1460 (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 1460 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1460 (SCMR) (LASHKAR ALI and others Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javad Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 3‑6‑1964, passed in Intra‑Court Appeal No. 104 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art .185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑ Option to purchase surrendered land made within prescribed time by respondent‑‑Leave to appeal refused against order dismissing petitioner's appeal against respondent.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 3‑6‑1984.
2. Hasan Eskari (respondent No.2) was allotted land against his entitlement certificate of 17845 produce index units in the Districts of Sheikhupura and Gujranwala. On promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No.89 his entitlement was reduced to 2951 produce index units and the excess land was surrendered by him. He, however, submitted an application for the purchase of the excess land equal to 14894 produce index units in the districts of Sheikhupura and Gujranwala under M.L.R. 89/91. However, before any action could be taken on his application, the surrendered land was allotted to the petitioners. He approached the lower Settlement authorities but without success and then he filed two Settlement Revisions bearing Nos.31 and 32 of 1972. The Settlement Commissioner on finding that the respondent had exercised option for the purchase of the surrendered land within the prescribed time accepted the revision petitions on 23‑9‑1980 and directed that the option exercised by the respondent be proceeded with in accordance with law. The matter then came up before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sheikhupura, who vide his order, dated 19‑5‑1981 came to the conclusion that the respondent had not filed any application for purchase of the surrendered land in time and thus ordered its allotment in favour of the sitting allottees. Respondent No.2 then took up the matter to the High Court through Constitutional Petition No.3004 of 1981 which was allowed on 23‑4‑1984 with a finding that the respondent had submitted application for purchase of the land within the prescribed period. An Intra‑Court Appeal against the above order was filed by the petitioners which has been dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record of the case. As there is overwhelming evidence available on A the record that respondent No.2 had exercised option m time, therefore, the learned I.CA. Bench was justified in dismissing the appeal.
4. Finding no force in this petition, the same is dismissed. M.BA./L 26/S Petition dismissed.