1983 PLP 62 (SCMR)
SAIF ALI-Petitioner Versus GALAS DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 62 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shaif-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | SAIF ALI-Petitioner Versus GALAS DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 62 (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 1983 PLP 62 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shaif-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 62 (SCMR) (SAIF ALI-Petitioner Versus GALAS DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 23rd June, 1982.
- Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 10-6-1975, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W. P. No. 1094-R of 1973). -- S. 12 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-High Court coming to conclusion that alleged allotment in favour of petitioner could not have been made unless certain conditions satisfied and such conditions held to be not satisfied-Main question regarding disputed allotment in favour of petitioner having been con cluded by findings of fact, no justification, held, made out for re opening same-Leave to appeal declined. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has" been sought from judgment dated 10.6‑1975 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a constitutional petition arising out of allotment of land under the Settlement Rehabili tation Laws, was dismissed.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Saif Ali petitioner who claimed to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir was allotted nearly 80 kanals of land on 30.4‑1962. Notwithstanding this allotment the same land excepting one. Khasra No. 113, was allotted to the respondent's side on 1‑11‑1965. An appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed on 30‑9‑1972 and his allotment was restored. However, a revision petition filed from the respondents side was accepted on 7‑11‑1973. The appellate order dated 30‑9‑1972 was set aside and the order of respondents' allotment dated 1‑11‑1965 was restored. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition (No. 1094‑R of 1973) and the same having been dismissed on 10‑6‑1975 he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner was allotted the land in question earlier in time, therefore, the second allotment which would amount to double allotment, was illegal and without lawful authority.
4. The entire question as to whether the petitioner was allotted the land in dispute prior to its allotment to the respondents side, was examined in detail by the Settlement Commissioner. The findings of fact in this behalf in the revisional order dated 7‑11‑1973 are against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, the' learned Single Judge in the High Court again examined the question whether there was any lawful allotment in favour of the petitioner prior to the allotment made to the respondents' side. He came to and additional conclusion that keeping in view the date of alleged allotment in favour of the petitioner, the same could not have been made unless certain condition, regarding drawing of rations satisfied; and, because the petitioner had failed so to satisfy that condition no such allotment could have been made.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we feel that the main question regarding the disputed allotment claimed to have been made in favour of the petitioner stands' concluded by the findings of fact. No justification has been made out for re‑opening the same in this Court. This petition accordingly is dismissed. Petition dismissed.