1991 PLP 390 (SCMR)
Mst. SAFAIDI and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 390 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAFAIDI and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 390 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 390 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 390 (SCMR) (Mst. SAFAIDI and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Rana M.A. Qadri. Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1990.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Rana M.A. Qadri. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 17th June, 1987 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in Writ Petition No.413 of 1981/BWP).
Ss. 10 & 11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Cancellation of land on Mukhbari application
Previous two attempts to have petitioner's allotment cancelled remained unsuccessful
Contentions raised on behalf of petitioners were that mutation and allotments having been scrutinised once by Chief Settlement Commissioner and for the second time by Martial Law Authorities, there was no justification in law to entertain Mukhbari application, thereafter, that such application being only against one petitioner, at the worst she could be deprived of the rights vesting in her and not the other petitioners who were never party to the Mukhbari applications, that the order of Settlement Authority challenged in Constitutional petition was based on earlier order of its predecessor which had already been quashed by the High Court, and, that documents initially produced by respondents were all in `Hindi', neither Court nor counsel for parties could read those and decision on basis of such documents on assumption that they were adverse to petitioners could not be rendered
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the questions raised in petition.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑ Claim of Mangal Khan was verified. Mutation of his inheritance No. 20 was sanctioned on 30‑5‑1958. Allotment was made. On a complaint by some person that Mangal Khan had not migrated to Pakistan, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur decided that the aforesaid Mutation No.20 was correctly sanctioned. This is vide his order dated 15‑11‑1958. Another application was moved before the Martial Law authorities. Ultimately the allotment was restored on 10‑11‑1961. Just before the repeal of the law on 30‑6‑1974, the respondent filed a Mukhbari application on 22‑6‑1976 under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 that land of Mangal Khan was obtained fraudulently. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur cancelled the allotment vide order dated 16‑5‑1975. In pursuance of order in W.P. 10/1977 dated 15‑2‑1978 the case was, again, decided against the petitioners vide order dated 17‑9‑1981. It was challenged through writ petition No.41.3‑R of 1987 which was dismissed on 17‑6‑1987. Petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that mutation and allotments having been scrutinised by the Deputy Commissioner who exercised powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and he having decided in favour of the petitioners on 15‑11‑1958 and also by the Martial Law authorities on 10‑11‑1961, there was no occasion or justification in law to entertain fresh Mukhbari application on 22‑6‑1974.1t was secondly contented that the application was only against petitioner No.1 and at worst she could be deprived of the rights vesting in her and not the other petitioners who were never party to the Mukhbari applications. Thirdly, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur dated 17‑9‑1981 challenged in writ petition is based on the earlier order of his predecessor dated 16‑5‑1975 which had already been quashed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.10‑R/77 on 15‑2‑1978. Lastly, he contended that the documents initially produced by the respondents were all in Hindi. Neither the Court nor the counsel for the parties could read those. How on assuming that those were adverse to the case of the petitioners, decision could be rendered?
3. Contentions raised require consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,
000. Interim order dated 10‑4‑1988 shall continue. Appeal to be processed on present record subject to filing additional documents if desired. A.A/S‑554/S Leave granted.