1990 PLP 940 (SCMR)
SHAH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑'Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 940 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑'Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 940 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 940 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 940 (SCMR) (SHAH MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑'Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K.M. Samdai, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑CPLAs Nos. 371 and 372 of 1986 are taken up together.
2. Order of the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha camp Sialkot dated 28‑5‑1974 remanding, the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to inspect the spot personally and see if the property had not been transferred to any other person and was in possession of the revision petitioners, then to transfer on their KNCH form, was challenged in two writ petitions. One was allowed and case remanded to the Notified Officer for fresh decision of the appeal of the then respondents, the petitioners in the first petition and the other dismissed for laches.
3. The question involved is whether the properties is possession of the petitioners were part of the premises of DRT Metal Works Abbot Road, Sialkot transferred to the respondent No. 1 to whom PTD had been issued. If not whether the petitioners were not entitled to transfer on their KNCH forms.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of remand by the Settlement Commissioner dated 28‑5‑1974 requiring spot inspection and enquiry as to whether the property already stood transferred or not was fair and just and should have been allowed to have its way to determine the rights of all the parties to the controversy.
5. Contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted subject to furnishing security of Rs.500 in each petition. Status quo shall continue. H.B.T./S‑508/S Leave granted.