1989 PLP 1145 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus DILAWAR KHAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1145 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus DILAWAR KHAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1145 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1145 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1145 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus DILAWAR KHAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Hamid Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988.
- Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata. His possession appeared to be unauthorised. The petitioner was rightly allotted this Ihata as he had none other to fall back upon though he was the Lambardar of the village.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court,, Lahore, dated 4‑6‑85, passed in Writ Petition No.167 of 1968). Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Respondent was shown in occupation of Ihata and without an inquiry and notice to him his possession was declared to be unauthorised and Ihata was allotted to the petitioner‑‑Board of Revenue maintained allotment order of the petitioner but High Court declared said order of the Board of Revenue to be without lawful authority on the ground that there was misreading of the record and the'Televant record had been ignored‑‑Record showed that respondent had been longer in possession of Ihata and his possession was at no stage recorded to be unauthorised nor proved to be so‑‑No finding was available on record to show that respondent was in possession of more than one Ihata‑‑Order of High Court did not suffer for any infirmity‑ Leave to appeal was refused with the observation that if the petitioner felt that respondent had either forfeited the right to remain the allottee of that Ihata or was possessed of more Ihata than one, dismissal of his petition for leave to appeal by Supreme Court would not preclude petitioner from agitating the matter before the competent Authority.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner who has been unsuccessful in the High Court in securing the allotment of Ihata in a Colony District, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4‑6‑1985. Dilawar, respondent, was shown as in occupation of Ihata NO‑
18. Without an inquiry and notice to him his possession was held to be unauthorised and Ihata was allotted to the Petitioner on 13‑5‑1966. The Board of Revenue in the hierarchy maintained that allotment order. The order of the Board of Revenue was declared to be without lawful authority on the ground that there was misreading of the record and an element of ignoring the relevant record. Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata. His possession appeared to be unauthorised. The petitioner was rightly allotted this Ihata as he had none other to fall back upon though he was the Lambardar of the village. From the record it appears that Dilawar had been longer in possession of Ihata. His possession was at no stage recorded to be unauthorised nor proved to be so. There is no finding by any authority that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata: In the circumstances, the High Court's order suffered from no infirmity and the leave to appeal is refused. However, if the petitioner feels that Dilawar has either forfeited the right to remain the allottee of that Ihata or is possessed of more Ihata than one, this decision will not preclude the petitioner from agitating the matter before the competent authority. M.B.A./F‑113/S Petition dismissed