1983 PLP 761 (SCMR)
MAHAND-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 761 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAHAND-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973} |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 761 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973} as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 761 (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: 1983 PLP 761 (SCMR) (MAHAND-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record and Mian Nusrat Ullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
- Date of hearing : 9tb, February, 1983.
- Sh. Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record and Mian Nusrat Ullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court dated 13th May, 1980 W. P. 631 of 1969),
Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958). S. 10-Allotment of land in lieu of land acquired by gift and left in India on partition-Contentions that factual determina tion of claim of petitioner by Revenue Officers and upheld by Board of Revenue has been interfered with by High Court without any justification and that notwithstanding registered gift deed, petitioner as collateral would be inheriting a share-Leave to appeal granted to further examine questions raised by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record and Mian Nusrat Ullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to
6. Date of hearing : 9tb, February, 1983. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioners are the nephews of Maula Bakhsh last male owner‑and they seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13th May, 1980 whereby they have been adjudged to be having no claim in the property in the hand of Mst. Fateh Bibi, the daughter of Maula Bakhsh. Maula Bakhsh, Jat Sindhu by caste, died leaving the estate in the hands of Mst: Bhago who made a gift (registered deed) in favour of Mst. Fateh Bibi on 11‑4‑1946. After migration Mst. Fateh Bibi submitted a claim form and obtained allotment of the land left by her in India. Against this allotment an appeal was filed whereby two‑thirds were allowed to the two daughters and the remaining was given over to the reversioners. This was challenged by Mst: Fateh Bibi in the revenue hierarchy but she failed in the Board of Revenue. Thereupon she instituted a constitutional petition which has succeeded mainly on the ground that this division of the property and allowing a share to the collateral was without any lawful authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions‑one of fact and the other of law in respect of the order under appeal. It is contended that the jurisdiction and authority of the Revenue Officers to deal with the claim in accordance with the law was considered by the Board of Revenue and upheld. Such a factual determination has been interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction without any justification. Secondly, even assuming, what it being alleged by Mst. Fateh Bibi, that the property happened to be self‑acquired property by Maula Bakhsh, if it had come to her by way of. gift from Mst. Bagho or by way of inheritance, it could not be the entire property‑there being only daughters of Maula Bakhsh available as heirs. Even in that case notwithstanding the registered gift deed the collaterals would be inheriting a share. The question of the petitioners being collaterals was not disputed either before the Board of Revenue or in the High Court. We consider that the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require further examination for which leave to appeal is granted. Security in the sum of‑. Rs: 2,
000. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional. documents as they consider necessary. Petition accepted.