1989 PLP 1092 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1092 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1092 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1092 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1092 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28‑5‑1984 in W.P. No.2024/1984). Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Allottee of State land‑‑Grant of proprietary rights denied to such allottee despite the fact that he satisfied conditions for grant of the same‑‑High Court's view that although allottee was cultivating the land since specified date, yet such land having been reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees, proprietary rights thereof, could not be granted, being unexceptionable would not provide any justification for interference with the findings of _ fact‑‑No infirmity being noticeable by Supreme Court in the impugned judgment, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The petitioner, an allottee of State land, has called in question the dismissal by the High Court of his Writ Petition, against the refusal by the respondents' side to grant him proprietary rights. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions for the grant of proprietary rights. Therefore, the High Court should have allowed the writ petition with the grant of mandatory injunction to the respondents, in this behalf. The relevant part of the impugned judgment relating to the point raised by the learned counsel reads as follows:‑‑ "According to the record produced by the Patwari, it is true that the petitioner was cultivating this land since Rabi 1976 but the record also shows that this land was reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees in 1978. Para. 2(ii) of the notification of 3‑9‑1979, under which the petitioner claims the grant of proprietary rights specifically excludes such lands which have been reserved for grants under permanent schemes. It is not denied that the Jammu and Kashmir Refugees Scheme is a permanent scheme. It is clear, therefore, that under this notification, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of proprietary rights." Learned counsel has, however, tried to show that the finding to the effect that the land in question had been reserved under the permanent scheme for settlement of Jammu and Kashmir Refugees, is not correct. After going through the relevant record relied upon by the learned ` counsel, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the findings of fact against the petitioner. There is no infirmity noticeable by this Court, in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑772/S Leave to appeal refused.