P L D 1986 Lahore 116 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1986 Lahore 116 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1986 Lahore 116 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1986 Lahore 116 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1986 Lahore 116 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Respondent No. 2.
- Dates of hearing : 14th and 15th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑ ‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11‑Evacuee Property .and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Respondent filing application before Assistant Commissioner against petitioner. alleging fraud and forgery and bogus allotment against him after getting revenue record tampered with Assistant. Commissioner on a report by Naib‑Tehsildar and for stated reasons finding merit in application and ordering that not only area standing in name of petitioner be cancelled but also that a case be registered against him‑Assistant Commissioner, had power to declare allotment in name of petitioner as ineffective‑Said application neither made under Ss. 10 and 11 of Act XLVII of 1958 nor did it solicit any action thereunder but it was a simple application made to a revenue officer to bring to his notice mischief done to relevant record in his sub‑division‑Contention that said application was a Mukhbari application made under Ss. 10 and 11 of said At an that after repeal of Act, 1958 Assistant Commissioner had no power to entertain same repelled. (b) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑Case of fruad, forgery and obtaining bogus allotment by tampering revenue record coming to light against petitioner/Assistant Commissioner, held, competent in getting a case registered against him. 1979 P Cr. L J 38 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.
1. Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Respondent No.
2. Dates of hearing : 14th and 15th December, 1985. On an application (Annexure 'H') filed by respondent No. 2 and bearing the date 19‑7‑1975, respondent No. I proceeded to pass his order, dated 22‑6‑1976 whereby, on the basis of some report made by a Naib Tehsildar to the effect that' Muhammad Hussain is the master‑mind behind the fraud and forgery so that he had also procured a bogus allotment after getting the revenue record tempered and arranging false entries in Register R. L. II of village Mianwal, he directed not only that the area which is shown to stand in his name for 850 P. I. Units in. village Sial be cancelled but also that a case be registered against him, for which purpose a separate direction to the same effect was also sent simultaneously to the S. H. O., Malakwal.
2. This order is challenged in this constitutional petition. Learned counsel argues that after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settle ment) Act, 1958. respondent No. I did not have the power to entertain the application of Mukhbari bearing the date 19‑7‑1975 or pass any order thereon. This argument is not well‑conceived because neither the relevant application has been made tinder section 10/11 of the aforesaid Act nor does it solicit ant, action thereunder. Muchless, did respon dent No. I purport to act under those sections. In fact, it is a simple application made to a Revenue Officer to bring to his notice the mischief done to the relevant record in leis sub‑Division and, for the stated reason, be has found merit in this application to come to the conclusion that the relevant allotment is forged. It is clear that not a non‑existant proceeding but only a valid one can be cancelled. Thus, the allotment purporting to appear to have been made in the name of the petitioner has simply been declared ineffective by respondent No. 1 and this, be had the power to so declare. Contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, repelled.
3. His order to have a case registered against the petitioner is defended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on the basis of the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3300/B of 1978, which is briefly reported as 1979 P Cr. L J Note 60 at page
38. I have sent for and seen the original order, dated 28‑8‑1978. Therein, it has been held by my learned brother Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J., as his lordship then was, as under :‑ "The Assistant Commissioner did not commit any illegality nor acted without lawful authority in asking the police to perform their ordinary duty and function of registration and investigation of the case."
4. Hence, no valid objection can be taken by the petitioner with regard even to the other part of‑his order which relates to having a case registered against him.
5. There is no case made out for exercise of Constitutional jurisdic tion and, hence, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.