1989 PLP 2060 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAKIM and 11 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2060 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAKIM and 11 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2060 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2060 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2060 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAKIM and 11 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Ch.Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 11.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1988.
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Ch.Hamid‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 11.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6-3-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P No.440-R/77)
S.10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal was granted to consider that there was a definite finding by the Settlement Commissioner that the excess allotment had been obtained through misrepresentation and that it was not open to the High Court to interfere with such finding in wirt jurisdiction, that an informer had a statutory right to obtain the land becoming available as a result of the information supplied by him and that order of High Court had the effect of depriving the petitioner of this statutory right.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal is an informer. He laid information before the Settlement Authorities that Mst.Lalan had obtain allotment of land much in excess of her actual entitlement. The Additional Settlement Commissioner held an inquiry and found that she had obtained allotment in excess of her entitlement to the extent of 986 units. Accordingly, he cancelled the excess allotment and directed that the area becoming so available should be given to the petitioner. His order was challenged in appeal by Jamal Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5, and some others but their appeal was dismissed. Jamal Din and the daughter of Mst. Lalan filed a writ petition in the High Court. Their case was that the excess allotment had been obtained on account of miscalculation of produce index units and there was no element of fraud or misrepresentation involved in the allotment and that under the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner they were entitled to purchase the area which they were being made to surrender. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for redecision.
2. After the remand the Settlement Commissioner took the view that it was not a case of miscalculation but one of concealment of true entitlement. Accordingly, he upheld the earlier order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was once again challenged in writ jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and directed that the excess area should be sold to the allottees at the rate of Rs.100 per index unit in four equal istalments to be payable within two years. From the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that there was a definite finding by the Settlement Commissioner that the excess allotment had been obtained through misrepresentation and that it was not open to the High Court to interfere with this finding in writ jurisdiction. Apart from that, an informer had a statutory right to obtain the land becoming available as a result of the information supplied by him. The order of the learned Single Judge had the effect of depriving the petitioner of this statutory right.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M.A.K./M‑961/S Leave granted.