1989 PLP 4442 (MLD)
KABIR ALI — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCHARGE SETTLEMENT CELL Sanghar and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4442 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Pirzada, J |
| Parties | KABIR ALI — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCHARGE SETTLEMENT CELL Sanghar and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4442 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4442 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haider Ali Pirzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4442 (MLD) (KABIR ALI — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCHARGE SETTLEMENT CELL Sanghar and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sibghatullah Hamid for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents 2 to 9.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
S.2--Transfer of property--High Court while remanding case to Authorised Officer ordered him to make fresh decision in the light of observations after affording parties opportunity to make out their case and after considering a certain document executed by respondent which was important for decision of the rights of parties over land in dispute--Authorised officer was also directed by High Court to hold an enquiry--Order of Authorised Officer impugned by petitioner showing that he had not complied with direction of High Court and also had not applied his mind--Case was remanded to Authorised Officer under S.2 of Act XIV of 1975 for fresh decision in the light of observations made by High Court in its judgment and also after affording reasonable opportunity to parties in support of their respective versions.
Judgment & Decree
S.2--Transfer of property--High Court while remanding case to Authorised Officer ordered him to make fresh decision in the light of observations after affording parties opportunity to make out their case and after considering a certain document executed by respondent which was important for decision of the rights of parties over land in dispute--Authorised officer was also directed by High Court to hold an enquiry--Order of Authorised Officer impugned by petitioner showing that he had not complied with direction of High Court and also had not applied his mind--Case was remanded to Authorised Officer under S.2 of Act XIV of 1975 for fresh decision in the light of observations made by High Court in its judgment and also after affording reasonable opportunity to parties in support of their respective versions. Syed Sibghatullah Hamid for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents 2 to 9. Date of hearing: 14th May, 1989. This petition is directed against the order dated 29-5-1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, whereby he advised the parties to seek remedy from the competent Civil Court if they so desire. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that by order dated 25-3-1984, this Court has remanded the case to the respondent No.l under section 2 of Act 14 of 1975 for fresh decision in the light of the observation made in the judgment and after affording reasonable opportunities to the parties to make out their case before the authorised officer. Mr. S.S. Hamid, learned counsel has contended that the respondent No.1 has not complied with the direction of this Court. I have perused the impugned order. A perusal thereof would show that the respondent No.l has not applied his mind to the facts of the instant case. The respondent No. 1 was directed to consider document dated 14-2-1970 executed by respondent No.2. The said document shows prima facie Manju has surrendered eight acres of land from his allotment in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.l was directed to hold an enquiry whether Ruldoo died before the heirs of Ruldoo had submitted their claim or not. It seems that the respondent No.l has not complied with the directions of this Court in the light of observations contained in the judgment dated 25-3-1984. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the authorised officer under Section 2 of the Act 14 of 1975 for fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the above judgment dated 25-3-1984 and after affording reasonable opportunities to the parties in support of their respective versions. M.Y.H./K-157/K Case remanded.