1986 PLP 770 (SCMR)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 770 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 770 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 770 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 770 (SCMR) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (absent), Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 1985.
- Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (absent), Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 7-11-1977 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 808 of 1977). --Art. 185(3)--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 25--Jurisdiction of civil Court--Bar to--Civil suit challenging transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII--Civil Court, held, had no jurisdiction as Settlement Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction in such cases.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the order of transfer of the property in question by the order, dated 3‑10‑1968 passed by Tehsildar Sheikhupura, exercising powers of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) under Settlement Scheme No. VII.
2. The Civil Court decreed the suit but, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and accepted the appeal. Then High Court agreed with the view of the learned Additional District Judge.
3. The view of the learned Additional District Judge and upheld by the High Court that the Settlement Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction in a case of this kind is plainly correct.
4. No ground for interference. M.I. Petition dismissed