SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 1889 (SCMR)

SANAULLAH Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1228 of 1980, decided on 25th July, 1987.
Honorable Judges
Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 1889 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Parties SANAULLAH Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others Respondents
Primary Law Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1889 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1889 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal, and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1889 (SCMR) (SANAULLAH Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

Representation

  • Khan Muhammad Younas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 25th July, 1987.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the order dated 29th June, 1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 435/11 of 1980).

S.10 & Sched.--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Dispute over disposal of evacuee property--Leave to appeal granted to consider correctness of assumption of High Court that the land covered by disputed Ihata was Government/ Cantonment Board Property; that the disputed Ihata had always been treated as evacuee property and disposed of as such by Settlement authorities and that whether on basis of his earlier allotment, petitioner could claim an extra piece of land.

Judgment & Decree

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 29-6-80 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioner.

2. The property in dispute' in this petition falls in a largish Ihata, measuring about 12 kanals, situate within the limits of Sialkot Cantonment. Prior to Independence it was owned by one Dewa Singh who had obtained the land underlying the Ihata on a lease in perpetuity from the relevant authorities.

3. The petitioner was a refugee from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 25-1'0-1975 a portion of, the Ihata was transferred to him. Subsequently, when the 'Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme came into force, he applied for the transfer of another two kanals of land adjacent to the area already transferred to him. His prayer was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by an order dated 4-2-80. He preferred an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the petition. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

4. The High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the land covered by the Ihata was Government/ Cantonment Board property. The petitioner has called in question the correctness of this assumption and it is contended on his behalf that the Ihata in dispute had always been treated as evacuee property and disposed of as such by the Settlement authorities.

5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs consideration. It does not appear that in the proceedings relating to the transfer of different portions of the Ihata to the occupants thereof either the Government or the Cantonment Board had even taken up the position that the land underlying the Ihata was not evacuee property. It also requires to be examined if on- the basis of his earlier allotment the petitioner could claim an extra piece of land. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,

000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents. S. Q./S-63/ S. Leave granted.