1987 PLP 23 (SCMR)
IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 23 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 23 (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 1987 PLP 23 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 23 (SCMR) (IBRAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, with Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17‑12‑1975 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 764/R of 1974). ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Allotment of land made in 1956 on basis of departmental calculation of units and no objection taken thereto‑‑Petitioner raising dispute in 1969‑‑High Court, held, was fully justified in disallowing petitioner to agitate in 1969, calculation of units of his entitlement made and satisfied as early as 1956.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 17‑12‑1975 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 764/R of 1974). ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Allotment of land made in 1956 on basis of departmental calculation of units and no objection taken thereto‑‑Petitioner raising dispute in 1969‑‑High Court, held, was fully justified in disallowing petitioner to agitate in 1969, calculation of units of his entitlement made and satisfied as early as 1956. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, with Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The dispute relates to the calculation of units of the petitioner's entitlement in respect of land left behind in District Gurgaun, India. The calculation had been made at the rate of 28 units per Acre for Banjar Jadeed, 14 units per Acre for Banjar Qadeem and 7 units per Acre for Ghair Mumkin. He had been allotted land on this basis in village Jambar Khurd, Tehsil Chunian, then District Lahore, in 1956. However, in 1969 he disputed the calculations claiming that he would be entitled to 50 units per Acre for Banjar Jadeed, 25 units per Acre for Banjar Qadeem and 121 units per Acre for Ghair Mumkin. The matter was finally disposed of in the Department by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, on 25‑3‑1974 when the petitioner's revision was dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal were that the total entitlement of the petitioner had already been satisfied and no pending unit remained anywhere and that the calculations made were in accordance with para. 16, Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner agitated the matter in the writ jurisdiction before the Lahore High Court but his petition was dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the allotment in his favour having been made in 1956 on the basis of the departmental calculation and no objection having been taken at that time. The petitioner could not raise the dispute on 29‑3‑1969 when he filed an appeal against allotment made in favour of respondent Umar Din.
2. We are of the view that the High Court was fully justified in disallowing the petitioner to agitate in 1969 the calculation of the units of his entitlement made and satisfied as early as 1956. We therefore, refuse his petition for leave to appeal. S. Q. Leave petition dismissed.