1976 PLP 504 (SCMR)
YOUSAF ALI KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS ‑Respondents'
| Citation | 1976 PLP 504 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | YOUSAF ALI KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS ‑Respondents' |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 504 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 504 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 504 (SCMR) (YOUSAF ALI KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS ‑Respondents'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Abdus Samad Hashmi. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th March 1974.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 20th of August 1973, in Review Application No. 44 of 1973). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Application for review dismissed by High Court on ground of order of Rehabilitation authority for reserving land in petitioner's favour being auspicious and not impressive‑Such order produced for first time with applica tion of review and not produced with writ petition although allegedly passed much earlier‑No reason, held, existed for interference with High Court's order refusing review of their previous order.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑This petition is from the orders of the Lahore High . Court dismissing the petitioner's Constitution Petition and an application for review of the order passed in the Constitution Petition. It appears that the petitioner was allloted the disputed lard by way of subsistence pending the verification of his claim. It is claimed that the petitioner apprehended transfer of the land during the pendency of the verification proceedings and he accordingly asked that the land be reserved in his name until his claim was verified. He has claimed further that the land was reserved for the petitioner. Nevertheless the land was allotted to respondent No.1, Muhammad Ali, on the 2nd of November, 1963. The petitioner preferred an appeal and revision from his order of allotment, but they were both dismissed. The last order of dismissal was on the 14th of July. 1973. The petitioner then approa0hed the High Court on the 10th of August, 1973, and it was dismissed by an order dated the 26th of July 1973. The petitioner applied for review of the, order dated the 26th of July, 1973, and it was dismissed on the 20th of August, 1973. In the writ petition only two contentions were raised :‑ (i) That the land had been reserved in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, it was not available for allotment to respondent No. 1; and (ii) That the petitioner was not heard before the allotment was made to the respondent. Both these contentions were repelled by the High Court, the first on the ground that no vaild order by a compete it authority was produced to show that the land had been reserved for the petitioner, and, the second, on the ground that the disputed land had been transferred to the respondent and it became vested in him and inasmuch that the petitioner had no vested right the property, he was not required to be beard. The application for review was dismissed on the ground that the document, namely, the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner reserving the lard in favour of the petitioner was suspicious and it did not impress the Court. This order was produced for the first time with the application for review. It was further observed that the order, of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner is dated the 19th of August, 1959, and it should have been produced alongwith the writ petition if it was genuine. We do not find any reason to interfere with the two aforesaid impugned orders of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.