1991 PLP 1539 (SCMR)
Mst. SUGHRA and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1539 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SUGHRA and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1539 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1539 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1539 (SCMR) (Mst. SUGHRA and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 1182/88).
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. 367/89).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1990.
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 1182/88).
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. 367/89).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 11-10-1988 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in W.Ps. 283-R/81-BWP and 495-R/81 BWP)
S. 2(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to consider petitioners' contention that they being bona fide purchasers for value were not heard, and that ground of cancellation of allotment of their predecessor-in-interest, that same was bogus, was not correct because verification of claims of persons from same estates notwithstanding that record from India had not been received was upheld by Settlement Commissioner and the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑In both the petitions, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11‑10‑1988 by which two writ petitions of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners being bona fide purchaser for value were not heard, and the ground of cancellation of the, allotment of their predecessor‑in‑interest Daud Khan that was bogus, is not correct because verifications of claims of persons from the same estates notwithstanding that the record from India had not been received were upheld by the Settlement Commissioner and the learned High Court.
3. Leave is granted to consider the aforesaid contentions subject to the question of limitation in the second petition. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000 in each case. Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with permission to file additional documents, if so advised. A.A./S‑598/S Leave granted.