1997 PLP 427 (SCMR)
TARIQ MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI KHAN and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 427 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Irshad Hasan Khan |
| Parties | TARIQ MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI KHAN and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 427 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 427 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Irshad Hasan Khan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 427 (SCMR) (TARIQ MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NIAMAT ALI KHAN and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Ilahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑12‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No.30/84). ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Remand of case by High Court with consent of counsel of parties‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Perusal of judgment of High Court showed that same had been passed with consent of counsel of parties appearing before it who had all agreed to remand of case for fresh decision after hearing parties‑‑‑Petitioner was represented before High Court by counsel‑‑‑Petitioner had failed to satisfy Court that he had not given authority to his counsel to give consent to such order of remand‑‑‑If petitioner's contention was correct that order of remand was without his consent, he could have approached High Court for recall of order on that ground‑‑‑There being no infirmity or flaw in impugned judgment, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CJ. ‑‑‑Agricultural land described in the impugned judgment was allotted to Najeeb‑ud‑Din and Tabey Hassan sons of Rajor alias Raju, displaced persons from Ambala District, against the verified claim. Niamat Ali Khan purchased the same land from them and sold it to petitioner Tariq Mahmood and others vide registered deeds. During enquiry it was discovered that the allotment was fraudulent inasmuch as two officers, namely, Syed Akhtar Ali Shah, Tehsildar, and Malik Muhammad Ali Gheba, Revenue Assistant, who were the member and the Chairman of Allotment Committee respectively, were not even posted at Jhelum in 1968. In view of such report, respondent No.6 (Dy. Commissioner/Collector of District Jhelum) cancelled the allotment.
2. Respondents Nos.l to 5 filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum for fresh decision. Grievance of the petitioner before us is that such order of remand could not have been passed long time after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser and transferee of the land in dispute which is in his possession since long.
3. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it has been passed by the High Court with the consent of the counsel of the parties appearing before it who had all agreed to the remand of the case for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Petitioner was respondent No.8 before the High Court in the writ proceedings and was represented by a counsel. Petitioner has failed to satisfy us that he had not given authority to his counsel to give consent to such order of remand. If his contention is correct that order of remand was without his consent, he could have approached the High Court for recall of the order on that ground. We see no infirmity or flaw in the impugned judgment and refuse leave on the ground that this petition has no merits. A.A./T‑115/S Leave refused.