1989 PLP 1942 (SCMR)
SHADI KHAN Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION)
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1942 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SHADI KHAN Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1942 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1942 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1942 (SCMR) (SHADI KHAN Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- C. M. Latif Rawn. Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22‑11‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 11356 of 1980) (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contentions that petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing and that the petitioner was m possession of the plot and that could not be transferred to the respondent, were concluded by findings of fact by High Court against the petitioner‑‑Petition for leave to appeal refused. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.11‑‑Locus standi‑‑Contention that even if the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer of property respondent was also not entitled to transfer thereof‑ When petitioner could not be transferred the plot in question, he lost his locus standi to challenge its transfer to respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a plot by the Settlement Authority having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. The grievance of his learned counsel is two‑fold. One that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing; and two that the petitioner was in possession of the plot. The same, therefore, could not be transferred to the respondent's side. Learned counsel has also contended that even if the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer respondent No. 1 as not entitled to the transfer of the plot. The first two questions raised by the learned counsel stand concluded b5 findings of fact by the High Court against the petitioner. Regarding the third, suffice it to observe that if the petitioner could not be transferred the plot in question he loses his locus standi to challenge its transfer to respondent No.3. Thus there being no force in it, this petition for leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./S‑405/S Leave refused