1994 PLP 953 (MLD)
Mst. KANEEZ MARYAM alias KANEEZ FATIMA — Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 953 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KANEEZ MARYAM alias KANEEZ FATIMA — Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 953 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 953 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 953 (MLD) (Mst. KANEEZ MARYAM alias KANEEZ FATIMA — Petitioner Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Aziz for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Hanif for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.10 & 11
Authority extensively dealt with the case of allotment of land in favour of original allottee and found that land in dispute was allotted to original allottee in excess to his entitlement
Authority cancelled such excess land from the name of original allottee and allowed vendee of such land to purchase that land which wag in his possession
Order of Authority, being just and fair could not be challenged by vendee of said excess land which was found to be in excess to the entitlement of original allottee/vendor.
Judgment & Decree
This Constitutional petition is directed against order, dated 28-9-1977 of the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling the excess land to the extent of 168 units from the name of original allottee Naseer-ul-Hassan in Aimanabad, Tehsil Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that claimant Naseer-ul-Hassan was allotted rural as well as urban land in different villages, the detail of which is reproduced on page 2 of the impugned order. The dispute in this case is relatable to the allotment made to the allottee in Aimanabad, Tehsil Gujranwala. Learned Chief Settlement Commissioner extensively dealt with the question of excess allotment and concluded that the allottee was allotted land in Aimanabad, Tehsil Gujranwala to the extent of 455 units on 6-4-1963 but he was entitled to urban allotment to the extent of 287 units and in this way excess allotment to the extent of 168 units was cancelled. While doing so, he observed as follow:
"This area is a garden and was sold to Mst. Kaniz Fatima (present petitioner), I, therefore, in exercising my powers under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, now read with section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, do hereby order for the cancellation of 168 units from the allotment of Naseer-ul-Hassan at Khatas Nos.17 and 82 of R.L.-II of Aimanabad. As the area is garden and is in possession of the vendees, I, therefore, allow her to apply to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the purchase of the area of 168 units within two months from the date of judgment."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-vendee vehemently submits that the allottee was not in possession of any excess area of 168 units and, therefore, the cancellation was not justified in law. He has produced before me a photostat copy of MR-5 in support of his contention. I am of the opinion that this contention of learned counsel has no substance. The issue regarding excess area cannot be decided on the basis of a photostat copy which was not produced before Chief Settlement Commissioner. Petitioner was participating in the cancellation proceedings and this point was not raised as is being done now. In any case learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has already allowed the petitioner to purchase excess area of 168 units and this is a fair and just order and no exception can be made to this. Petitioner can apply to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as already directed, and no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition which is I dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./K-117/L Petition dismissed.