1989 PLP 1279 (SCMR)
NOOR KHAN Petitioner Versus A.C., DEPALPUR and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1279 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR KHAN Petitioner Versus A.C., DEPALPUR 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 1279 (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 1279 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1279 (SCMR) (NOOR KHAN Petitioner Versus A.C., DEPALPUR and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19‑4‑1983. passed in Intra‑Court Appeal No.92 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner as an informer succeeded in getting allotment of the surrendered area but his own allotments were thereafter found in excess and the excess land was resumed from him in 1966‑‑Petitioner challenged the resumption of land and succeeded to the extent that a choice was to be afforded to him in the matter of surrendering the excess land‑‑Proceedings took place in 1983 in going effect to the order of Supreme Court with regard to the choice and the adjustments earlier made were re affirmed‑‑Petitioner contended that the entire land inclusive of the excess should be first restored in its entirety to him and thereafter necessary reduction should be made and any adjustment made without restoring that allotment to him was not tenable in law‑‑Held: Contention by petitioner would only create an entitlement for him, right from 1966 to the present date for which he had no claim‑‑Petitioner was entitled to receive land in full to the extent of his entitlement and if he had not received to the extent of his entitlement, he should make that grievance before the appropriate authority.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 19th of April.1983 whereby his appeal was dismissed maintaining thereby the dismissal of the Constitutional petition. The petitioner as an informer succeeded in the first round and got allotments of the surrendered area. His own allotments were thereafter found in excess to the extent of 725 P.I. Units. It was resumed from him in October, 1966. He challenged it and succeeded to the extent that a choice was to be afforded to him in the matter of surrendering the excess. In giving effect to the order of this Court with regard to the choice, proceedings took place in March, 1983 and the adjustments earlier made were re‑affirmed. The petitioner's argument throughout has been that the entire land inclusive of the excess should be first restored in its entirety to him and there after necessary reduction should be made. Any adjustment made without restoring that allotment to him is, according to him, not tenable in law. It is true that the petitioner is entitled to receive in full to the extent of his entitlement. If he has not received to the extent of his entitlement, he should make that grievance before the appropriate authority. The position taken by the petitioner that first the entire land inclusive of the excess should be restored to him and then a reduction should be ordered would only create an entitlement for him, right from 1966 to the present date for which he has no claim. All the authorities have held that he had been given the necessary. choice and the judgment of this Court has been implemented. This is also the finding of the High Court to this effect. As the question of fact stands concluded, and no question of law arises, leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A./N‑167/S Petition dismissed.