2006A209 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006A209 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Kh. Muhammad Saeed, C. J. and Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006A209 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006A209 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Kh. Muhammad Saeed, C. J. and Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006A209 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Riaz Alam, Advocate for Appellant.
- Raja Muhammad Siddique, Advocate for Respondent.
- 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant placing reliance on the definition of `allotment' given in section 2 of the AJ&K Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotments) Act, 1961 and amended section 2(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 contended that as allotment in the name of members of the family is included in the definition of `allotment', hence the appellant being a member of his father's family is a co-sharer in the land.
- 4. The learned Advocate for the respondent defended the order passed by the Courts below. He contended that father of the appellant was the sole allottee, and, neither the allotment permit contains the name of any other person nor does the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order contain the name of any person to be co-allottee, hence the appellant cannot be said to be a co-sharer with his father. He further contended that the definition of allotment given under section 2 of the AJ&K Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotments) Act is for a separate purpose not meant for general purpose. Similarly, the amendment effected in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, in 2004 does not cater the case in hand as the cause of action alleged by the appellant has arisen in late nineties, while the law is brought into being in 2004 without any retrospective effect. He placed reliance upon Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 17 others 1996 SCR 359.
- 5. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the law on which the reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The Multiple Allotments Act was enforced in 1961 under Government Order No.89/61 dated 1-3-1961. The aim and object of the Multiple Allotments Act is to provide for more effective investigation of multiple allotments of evacuee property. The definition of the allotment is given under section 2(a) of the AJ&K Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotments) Act as:
- 7. As far the amendment in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act in 2004 is concerned, it does not apply retrospectively as the words used for its application are that it shall come into force with immediate effect, hence it does not include the cases which arose before the enforcement of the Act. The learned Advocate has rightly relied upon a case titled Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 17 others 1996 SCR 359.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42(ii)
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotment) Act, 1961, S.2
Definition of `allotment' under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotment) Act, 1961, had to be read in context with purpose of law in which it was found; it was a special category of cases for checking misappropriation of evacuee property by multiple allotments and misusing same under guise of law and was actually not the definition, but grouping together of allotments made to different persons, benefit of which ultimately flew towards one family which was described as multiple allotment
Amendment in Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 in the year 2004 would not apply, retrospectively as words used for its application, were that it would come into force with immediate effect and would not include cases which arose before enforcement of said Act.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J.
This appeal, with leave of the Court, is filed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Mirpur on 11-5-2005 in Civil Appeal No.4 of 2005.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of present appeal are that appellant's father was allotted evacuee land which consisted of number Khasra 162 measuring 5 Kanals, 17 Marlas also. After obtaining Proprietary Rights Transfer Order in his favour, the appellant's father alienated this land in favour of respondent, Muhammad Siddique. Appellant filed a suit for possession based on right of prior purchase on the ground that he being a member of the family of his father is co-sharer in the land, hence has preferential right to purchase the land as against the respondent. All the Courts below disallowed the suit, hence this appeal.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant placing reliance on the definition of `allotment' given in section 2 of the AJ&K Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotments) Act, 1961 and amended section 2(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 contended that as allotment in the name of members of the family is included in the definition of `allotment', hence the appellant being a member of his father's family is a co-sharer in the land.
4. The learned Advocate for the respondent defended the order passed by the Courts below. He contended that father of the appellant was the sole allottee, and, neither the allotment permit contains the name of any other person nor does the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order contain the name of any person to be co-allottee, hence the appellant cannot be said to be a co-sharer with his father. He further contended that the definition of allotment given under section 2 of the AJ&K Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotments) Act is for a separate purpose not meant for general purpose. Similarly, the amendment effected in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, in 2004 does not cater the case in hand as the cause of action alleged by the appellant has arisen in late nineties, while the law is brought into being in 2004 without any retrospective effect. He placed reliance upon Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 17 others 1996 SCR 359.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the law on which the reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The Multiple Allotments Act was enforced in 1961 under Government Order No.89/61 dated 1-3-1961. The aim and object of the Multiple Allotments Act is to provide for more effective investigation of multiple allotments of evacuee property. The definition of the allotment is given under section 2(a) of the AJ&K Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotments) Act as: "2(a) "Allotment" includes allotment obtained by a person in his or her own name or in the name of his wife or her husband or in the name of any relative dependent upon him or upon her, of evacuee property in Pakistan or in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir territory."
6. The definition of `allotment' under the above law has to be read in context with the purpose of law in which it is found. It is a special category of the, cases for checking the misappropriation of evacuee property by multiple allotments and misusing the same under guise of law. It is actually not the definition, but grouping together of allotments made to different persons' benefit of which ultimately flows towards one family which is described as multiple allotment.
7. As far the amendment in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act in 2004 is concerned, it does not apply retrospectively as the words used for its application are that it shall come into force with immediate effect, hence it does not include the cases which arose before the enforcement of the Act. The learned Advocate has rightly relied upon a case titled Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 17 others 1996 SCR
359. In view of above, finding no fault with the judgments of the Courts below, the appeal is dismissed with costs. N.B.T./21-SC(AJ&K)???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.