1983 PLP 1063 (SCMR)
FAIZAN ALI-Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1063 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | FAIZAN ALI-Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1063 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1063 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1063 (SCMR) (FAIZAN ALI-Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Noor Ilahi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th March, 1983,
- Ch. Noor Ilahi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12-11-1976, passed in W. Ps. Nos. 892-R and 893-R of 1969). -- Art. 185 (3)-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10-Record showing that petitioner filed as many as four writ petitions and all dismissed by High Court Matter considered by numerous officers in Settlement Department for 20 years-High Court and Settlement Department thoroughly thrashing out case and dealing with every aspect thereof-Petitioner urging no good ground for interference with judgment of High Court-Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This order shall dispose of two Petitions y(Nos. 108 and 109 of 1977) both filed by Faizan Ali son of Fateh Din against the order of the High Court, dated 12‑11‑1976, dismissing his two writ petitions in a settlement matter.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at consider able length. On going through the record we find that he filed as many as four writ petitions all of which have been dismissed by the High Court. The matter was also considered by numerous officers in the Settlement Department during the last 20 years. The said officers as well as the learned Judges in the High Court have thoroughly thrashed out the case and dealt wit every aspect thereof. The petitioners learned counsel has not been able to urge any good ground for interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. M. Z. M Petitions dismissed.