1985 PLP 1782 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1782 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1782 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1782 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1782 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3‑‑Excess allotment‑‑Cancellation of‑‑Cancellation of excess land‑‑Order upheld upto Supreme Court‑‑New round of litigation agitating allotment of excess area in favour of respondent‑‑Plea that petitioners having been in possession of suit land during required period were entitled to its transfer, repelled‑‑Earlier round of litigation having concluded during existence of Act (XIV of 1975) and there being nothing in Act to affect efficacy of concluded decisions, matter could not be re‑opened‑‑Plea based on possession being no longer available in law, petition failed and dismissed. Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th June, 1985. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The petitioners had been found in the result of proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to have received allotment of land in excess of entitlement by 109 units. The additional Settlement Commissioner, however, by his order, dated 10‑4‑1969, allowed them to retain 21 units but cancelled the allotment of the land equivalent to 88 units. The petitioners challenged this cancellation through a civil suit right up to this Court but failed throughout. While dismissing their petition for leave to appeal, on 2‑3‑1977, this Court disapproved of any attempt on their part to re‑agitate the matter on the Settlement side, holding that the litigation in the matter is "justly concluded".
2. Nevertheless, the petitioners again started a new round by challenging the allotment made earlier on 12‑11‑1976 in favour of respondent No. 5, of the excess land cancelled from their name. Their writ petition and I.C.A. having been dismissed, they have now filed this petition for leave to appeal. They base their claim under the proviso to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) on the ground that they having been in possession of the land during the required period, they were entitled to its transfer in their favour. We find no force in the plea. Act XIV of 1975 had already been in existence when the earlier round had concluded. There is also nothing in the Act to affect the efficacy of concluded decisions, which decisions being past and closed could not, therefore, be re‑opened. A plea based on possession was no longer available in law to the petitioners. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.