1989 PLP 1851 (MLD)
BENAZIR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1851 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BENAZIR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1851 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1851 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1851 (MLD) (BENAZIR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ---Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Counsel for petitioner filing his personal affidavit to the effect that he appeared before Federal Land Commission and requested for adjournment on ground, that petitioners were in custody and he could not obtain Vakalatnama, that he was not- allowed time nor was heard though in impugned order it was stated that counsel was heard--No counter affidavit to deny such averment had been filed by official respondent--Case remanded to Federal Land Commission for disposal afresh after notice to parties.
- Mujeeb Pirzada for Petitioner.
- 2. It seems that the petitioners in C.P. No. D-283 of 1979 and C.P. No.284 of 1979 and the legal guardian of the petitioner in C.P.No.D-1132 of 1979 were under detention, whereas petitioner in C.P. No.D-109 of 1979 was abroad. It further seems that Mr. Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel has riled his personal affidavit to the effect that he appeared before the respondent No. 1 requesting for adjournment on the ground that the aforesaid petitioners were in custody and he would obtain Vakalatnama from them for appearance on their behalf, but he was not allowed time, nor he was heard, though in the impugned order it has been stated that the Advocate was heard. No counter affidavit to deny the above averment has been filed by the official respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Counsel for petitioner filing his personal affidavit to the effect that he appeared before Federal Land Commission and requested for adjournment on ground, that petitioners were in custody and he could not obtain Vakalatnama, that he was not- allowed time nor was heard though in impugned order it was stated that counsel was heard--No counter affidavit to deny such averment had been filed by official respondent--Case remanded to Federal Land Commission for disposal afresh after notice to parties. Mujeeb Pirzada for Petitioner. AJMAL MIAN, C. J.-- By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above four petitions. The main ground of attack to the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 is that the petitioners were not heard.
2. It seems that the petitioners in C.P. No. D-283 of 1979 and C.P. No.284 of 1979 and the legal guardian of the petitioner in C.P.No.D-1132 of 1979 were under detention, whereas petitioner in C.P. No.D-109 of 1979 was abroad. It further seems that Mr. Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel has riled his personal affidavit to the effect that he appeared before the respondent No. 1 requesting for adjournment on the ground that the aforesaid petitioners were in custody and he would obtain Vakalatnama from them for appearance on their behalf, but he was not allowed time, nor he was heard, though in the impugned order it has been stated that the Advocate was heard. No counter affidavit to deny the above averment has been filed by the official respondents.
3. In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the case to the Federal Land Commission to cause the disposal of the above cases afresh after notice to the petitioners and to the respondents and after hearing them. Similar order was passed in C.P. No D-104 of 1979, Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Senior Member, Land Commission Sind and other connected petitions on 19-3-1984 by a Division Bench of this Court presided by the then Chief Justice. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost: M.Y.H./B-108/K Case Remanded.