1987 PLP 1412 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1412 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1412 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1412 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1412 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 3‑3‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 711‑R‑1972). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grant of‑‑Impugned order made without jurisdiction‑‑High Court's order passed in Constitutional jurisdiction based on conjectural assumptions‑‑Land Settlement‑‑ Cancellation of allotment‑‑Order passed without jurisdiction‑‑High Court having found that Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel allotment, declined to give relief to petitioner on ground that claim of petitioner did not appear to be genuine and that it was unusual that a claimant should be given such a large allotment in an urban area‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that High Court should have quashed order of cancellation passed without jurisdiction and that it erred in declining to give relief to petitioner merely on conjectural assumptions. Nemo for Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Mst. Quresha Khatoon, predecessor‑in interest of the petitioners, was allotted about 251 kanals of agricultural land in the urban area of Kasur on 10‑8‑1964. The land fell within the border belt. The Border Area Committee cancelled the allotment on the ground that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had made the allotment lacked competency in this regard and that the claim of Mst. Quresha Khatoon was transferred to the District after the prescribed date, that is, 24‑12‑1952. The petitioners preferred a writ petition in the High Court to question the legality of the order of the Border Area Committee. The High Court accepted the petition, the order of cancellation and remanded the case to the order Area Committee on the ground that before cancelling the allotment the Committee had not given an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. After the remand the petitioners did not seriously contest the proceedings and as a result the Border Area Committee once again cancelled the allotment. Upon this the petitioners filed the present writ petition to challenge the order of the Committee.
2. The case of the petitioners before the High Court was that as the land in dispute fall within the urban area of Kasur the Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel their allotment. The High Court found merit in this contention but dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the claim of Mst. Quresha Khatoon did not appear to be genuine and that it was most unusual that a claimant should be given such a large allotment in an urban area.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that after the High Court had found that the Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment, it should have quashed the order of cancellation and that it erred in declining to give relief to the petitioner merely on conjectural assumptions that the claim of Mst. Quresha Khatoon did not appear to be genuine or that it was unusual that a claimant should be allotted land more than a few acres.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. 'The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M.I./M‑112/S. Leave granted.