1984 PLP 1278 (SCMR)
AFZAL ALI GILL Petitioner Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1278 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | AFZAL ALI GILL Petitioner Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1278 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1278 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1278 (SCMR) (AFZAL ALI GILL Petitioner Versus THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th March, 1984. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner who was the unsuccessful plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑5‑1982 whereby his civil revision petition was dismissed. The petitioner was a grantee of land under Tube‑well Sinking Scheme under the Development Authority. He received the possession of the land on 1‑8‑1953. It was resumed from him in the year 1958 on the ground of non‑fulfillment of the conditions of the grant. He instituted a civil suit in the year 1979 challenging the resumption of the grant from him on the ground mainly that he had received no notice and was not afforded hearing in the matter. His suit was decreed on 14‑7‑1980 but on appeal the Additional District Judge on 3‑3‑1982 reversed the decision holding that the petitioner had received due notice of the proceedings culminating in resumption of the grant. The petitioner then approached the High Court in civil revision, which too was dismissed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that from the evidence on record it was established that no show‑cause notice had been given to the grantee before resuming the grant. We have examined the statement of petitioner's own witness Shamshad Hussain which has the effect of establishing that before the resumption of the grant was ordered, notice was issued to the petitioner and there was material on record to show that it was served. The A petitioner did not personally appear to repudiate such evidence. The Additional District Judge and the learned Judge in the High Court both concurred in the factual finding that the resumption of the grant was not without service of proper notice. In the circumstances, there is no question of law to be further examined and leave to appeal is refused. S. Q. Leave refused.