1969 PLP 146 (SCMR)
Shahzadi MASTURA BEGUM ETC. Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 146 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Shahzadi MASTURA BEGUM ETC. Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 146 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 146 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 146 (SCMR) (Shahzadi MASTURA BEGUM ETC. Petitioners Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Aftab Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Bashir Ahmad with him) instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 7th November 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th March 1968, in Writ Petition No. 1367‑R of 1.966).
Art. 98 Laches‑Explanation that petitioner had been making, during period, representations to Government‑High Court dismissing petition holding that representations were not made under any provision of law but to curry favour from Government quarters‑Petition, held, rightly dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Aftab Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Bashir Ahmad with him) instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 7th November 1968. FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑The petitioners on the strength of an oral gift alleged to have been made in 1946 by Nawab Ehsan Ali Khan of Malerkotla of some of his properties in their favour, filed in February 1958, an application before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, for allotment of land in lieu of the gifted property which they had left in Malerkotla, and he recommended their case for favourable consideration to the higher authorities. On 10th October 1958, the Secretary (Rural) to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, however, refused to accept the said recommendation. The petitioners then moved the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, but he rejected their claim. Their petition for review of the said order was also dismissed on 31st December 1959. Thereafter, they made various representations to the Government, and failing to get any relief from them moved a writ petition in the High Court in October 1966, challenging the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, which had been passed in 1959. The High (Court, while dismissing the petition in limine, observed :‑ "In the first place, the petitioners failed to move this Court from December 1959, right up to October 1966. The petition, therefore, suffers from inordinate delay and laches. The explanation of the petitioners that they have been making representations to the Government and, therefore, it was not a case of delay and laches has not impressed us because the so called representations were not made under any provision of law and were in the nature of currying favour from the Rehabilitation Ministry. This by itself is no ground to condone the delay." In our opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court have given good and sufficient reasons for declining to exercise their discretion in favour of the petitioners in this case. It may also be pointed out that though the alleged gift was made in 1946, the donees did not prefer their claim till 1958. Furthermore, their explanation for the inordinate delay in moving the High Court in 1966 against an order passed in 1959, has rightly been considered unsatisfactory. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Leave refused.