SCMR 1989

1989 PLP 1265 (SCMR)

JALAL DIN and others Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.380 of 1985, decided on 8th August, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 1265 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
Parties JALAL DIN and others Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others Respondents
Primary Law Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1265 (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 1265 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1265 (SCMR) (JALAL DIN and others Petitioners Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
  • Muhammad Rafique Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 8th August, 1988.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the order dated 19‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in It Petition No.628/R of 1973).

S.10‑‑Mukhbari application resulting in cancellation of allotment‑‑Allottee in meantime had sold the land and vendees thereof invoked Constitutional diction of High Court wherein their plea was accepted‑‑Mukhbar contention ,that allotment was to a remote heir who was excluded from the nearer heirs of deceased claimant and that a Mukhbar had a right to obtain the land which became available as a result of information supplied by him‑‑Leave was granted to examine contention of Mukhbars and also whether the order of High Court in Constitutional petition had the effect of depriving the petitioners of their statutory right.

Judgment & Decree

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is by the Mukhbars whose application under section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act succeeded before the Settlement authorities but who failed to draw any benefit from their success on account of a writ issued by the High Court.

2. One Mst. Umri succeeded to the property of her husband under the custom in Jallundur. She died during the disturbances in 1947. Naseer Ahmad, respondent No.5, obtained allotment of land in Pakistan against the land left by her as her husband's collateral. The petitioners filed a Mukhbari application alleging that respondent No.5 was not an heir of Mst. Umri's husband. The Additional Settlement Commissioner inquired into the matter and found substance in their assertion. Accordingly, he set aside the allotment obtained by respondent No.5. From his order respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who had earlier purchased the land from respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner but it was dismissed. The vendees then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition with the following observations:‑ "Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a pre‑deceased's son was not excluded from inheritance under sections 46 and 46‑A of the Rehabilitation Scheme. This is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department. In view of the above and the fact that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value of a small piece of land this petition is allowed to the extent of the purchase of the aforesaid land. However, in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs." The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. In support of this petition it is contended that respondent No.5 was a t remote heir and was excluded by the nearer heirs of Mst. Umri's husband. He was not the son of the predeceased son of Mst. Umri's husband who had died issueless and as such the provisions of paragraphs 46 and 46‑A of the I Rehabilitation Scheme were not attracted in his case. Apart from that under section 14(1‑A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, a mukhbar had a right to obtain the land which became available as, a result of the information supplied by him. The order of the learned Single Judge had the effect of depriving the petitioners of this statutory right.

4. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,

000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./J‑43/S Leave granted.