1995 PLP 944 (SCMR)
IFTIKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus The DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus The DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Shamilat‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Shamilat‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 944 (SCMR) (IFTIKHAR‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus The DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Ziaullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 1‑2‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.1125/R/79). ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dispute relating to ownership of Shamilat Deh and its partition‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether whole of the Shamilat Deh was owned by Hindu owners or by both Hindu and Muslim owners and whether partition thereof, had taken place or not. Mehr Dad v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1974 SC 193 ref. '
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 1‑2‑1993.
2. The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 8 Kanals, 10 Marlas and 105 Sq.Ft. bearing Khasra No. 1535 of Shamilat Deh of village Pakki Thatti, Tehsil and District Lahore. The learned Judge in Chamber observed that there appears to be no dispute that Khasra No. 1535 is a part of Shamilat Deh. The learned High Court further observed that there is no positive evidence whether or not the Shamilat Deh of the village Pakki Thatti had been partitioned between its Muslim and non‑Muslim owners. After accepting the petition of the petitioners the case was remanded to the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board for its decision afresh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, according to both the parties no partition of Shamilat Deh had taken place. According to the Chairman, the whole of the Shamilat Deh was owned by Hindu owners. According to the petitioners, the Shamilat Deh was owned by the Hindus and Muslims, but no partition had taken place. There was no necessity of remanding the case to the Chairman. The learned counsel has referred to Mehr Dad v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1974 SC 93) wherein it has been observed that property cannot be declared evacuee until joint Khata is partitioned. Leave is granted. AA./I‑207/S Leave granted.