1989 PLP 1536 (SCMR)
ALI ASGHAR and another Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, (LAND)/A.C.
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1536 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALI ASGHAR and another Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, (LAND)/A.C. |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1536 (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 1989 PLP 1536 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1536 (SCMR) (ALI ASGHAR and another Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, (LAND)/A.C.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Advocate, (absent) instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1st December, 1981 in Writ Petition No.300/R/81). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal anted to consider that on reading of order passed by Assistant Commissioner/Collector, no units of the petitioners were left to be satisfied but there was some confusion in the last part of the order which could only be clarified by making reference to the Settlement Authorities.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a land settlement case, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Constitutional petition. On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners confidently asserted that he would satisfy the respondents' side/their counsel that at the relevant/crucial time the petitioner did have 109 P.I. Units which required to be adjusted. He had also then stated that if he failed to satisfy the learned counsel, he would not press the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present today. The case has been heard in presence of learned A.O.R. of the petitioners. When the learned counsel for the respondent was asked as to whether the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners was correct and if not whether he was able to make a categorical statement; that the said number of units or lesser (or more than that number of units), were not available to the petitioner at the relevant time, he answered that in so far as the reading of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector (which is one of the disputed decisions), no units of the petitioners' side were left to be satisfied. However, to be fair to him he candidly stated that there is some amount of confusion in the last part of the said order of the Assistant Commissioner which can only be clarified by the petitioners making reference to the Settlement Authorities. He further undertook that if the Settlement Authorities agree that the petitioners' side was correct in its assertion he would then submit that instead of dislodging the respondents from the land in dispute the petitioners should be accommodated somewhere else. After some hearing and examination of the relevant documents, we consider it a fit case to examine the questions raised by the counsel for the parties and also those raised in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of Settlement Department shall make representation with record. M.A.K./A‑493/S Leave granted.