1985 PLP 383 (MLD)
MIR ZAHID and others — Petitioners Versus BADARUL HUDA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 383 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | MIR ZAHID and others — Petitioners Versus BADARUL HUDA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 383 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), (b) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII oaf 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 383 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 383 (MLD) (MIR ZAHID and others — Petitioners Versus BADARUL HUDA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed Khan for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Rafique Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 11--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Mukhbf petition--Excess allotment--Cancellation of--Excess allotment made basis of verification of claims by Central Record Office--Allotment ma on basis of verified claims by Public Authorities, held; did. not necessary follow that allotment had been obtained by fraud--Mukhbari petiti rightly dismissed in circumstances.
Ss. 10 & 11--Mukhbari petition--Entire allotment--Sale in favour of allottee--Objection to such sale--Objection raised in Mukhbari petition that entire allotment could not be sold in favour of allottee--No basis laid in Mukhbari petition--Petition dismissed--Other reasons for dismissal of such petition also discussed.
Art. 199--Petition filed suffering from delay of nearly 1 years held, was liable to be dismissed for laches.--[Laches].
Art. 199--Petitioner filing Constitutional petition on ground of another Constitutional petition having been admitted by High Court against order of same authority--Fact of admission of another petition against same authority alone, Geld, would not be sufficient reason for proceedings with another petition in circumstances. Ch. Inayatullah Khan for the Settlement Department.
Judgment & Decree
1. Petitioner filed a Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which was enquired into and dismissed by the learned Settlement commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner on 27-6-1977. This is challenged by the petitioner through the afore-titled Constitutional petition filed on 27-11-1978.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when it was observed by the Settlement Commissioner that the allegation of excess allotment stood established it was not open to him to say that the respondents had committed no fraud. Secondly, the entire allotment could not be sold in favour of the allottee because of the limit of subsistence holding under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975.
3. Excess allotment had been made on the basis of the verification of the claims by the Central Record Office from time to time and the Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner had found that that was in good faith and that the respondents had not committed any fraud. If the allotment is made on the basis of verified claim by the public authorities it does not necessarily follow that the allotment had been obtained by fraud. Therefore, there is no inconsistency, in the circumstances of the case, in the order of the Settlement Commissioner who had observed that though the excess allotment stood established but no fraud had been committed by the- respondents. As regards the second contention, no basis has been laid in the petition. Moreover, this petition by the Mukhbar is liable to be dismissed for various reasons. The first being that the excess area was ordered to be sold to the allottee on permission of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 15-1-1964. This was never challenged and became final. Then the Chief Settlement Commissioner permitted the sale on 30-6-1976. This too was never challenged arid had become final. Petitioner's Mukhbari application had been examined by the competent officer and found to be without .merit and he dismissed it. The matter is concluded by finding of facts. In fact; this application was not competent because earlier an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 had already been disposed of by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 15-1-1964. Further, the writ petition filed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 27-6-1976, on 28-11-1978 suffers from inordinate delay of nearly 1] years and is liable to be dismissed for laches. Actually the petitioner seems to have moved this petition because of another Writ Petition No. 1052-R of 1977 filed by tile allottee against the same order of the Settlement Commissioner on 27-6-1977 and it was admitted because of the admission-of the said petition but this fact alone is not sufficient for proceeding with this petition for the reasons given above. The Mukhbari application of the petitioner had rightly been dismissed and he must leave the settled refugee in peace. H.B.T