2011 SCMR 318 (PLP)
Mst. NAJMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus REHMAT ALI (decd) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 318 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NAJMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus REHMAT ALI (decd) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 318 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 318 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 318 (PLP) (Mst. NAJMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus REHMAT ALI (decd) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1739-L of 2006).
- Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1745-L of 2006).
- Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.5 (in C.P. No. 1739-L of 2006).
- Ch. M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 (in C.P. No.1739-L of 2006).
- Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3 (in C.P. No.1745-L of 2006).
- Ch. M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.5 and 7 (in C.P. No. 1745-L of 2006).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both petitions).
- KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---Having argued the matter at some length, Mr. A.R. Shaukat, the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mr. Shahzad Shaukat, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners in Civil Petition No. 1739-L of 2006 as also Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners in Civil Petition No. 1745-L of 2006 pray for permission to withdraw the respective petitions filed by them but add that to save the petitioners in both these petitions from injustice, they may be permitted to approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer for satisfaction of their respective claims against some available evacuee property.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-6-2006 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 138-R of 1989 and 113-R of 1995).
Art. 185(3)
Withdrawal of petition
Counsel for the petitioners had prayed for permission to withdraw the respective petitions, but added that to save the petitioners from injustice, they could be permitted to approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer for satisfaction of their respective claims against some available evacuee property
Both the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with the direction that if the petitioners would approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer for satisfaction of their alleged claims, then competent Authority, notwithstanding the, repeal of the Settlement Laws, would examine the genuineness of the said claims; and then consider satisfaction of the same against some evacuee property; if available, as the matter was pending litigation when the relevant Settlement Laws had been repealed. Rana Abdul Hamid, Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation, Lahore on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
Having argued the matter at some length, Mr. A.R. Shaukat, the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mr. Shahzad Shaukat, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners in Civil Petition No. 1739-L of 2006 as also Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners in Civil Petition No. 1745-L of 2006 pray for permission to withdraw the respective petitions filed by them but add that to save the petitioners in both these petitions from injustice, they may be permitted to approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer for satisfaction of their respective claims against some available evacuee property.
2. Both the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the direction that if the petitioners approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner or the Notified Officer for satisfaction of their alleged claims then the competent authority shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the settlement laws, examine the genuineness of the said claims and then consider A satisfaction of the same against some evacuee property, if available, as the matter was pending litigation when the relevant settlement laws had been repealed and is being finally decided today. H.B.T./N-11/SC Order accordingly.