1985 PLP 552 (SCMR)
Nawabzada MUHAMMAD SHAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL LAND DISPUTES and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 552 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Nawabzada MUHAMMAD SHAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL LAND DISPUTES and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 552 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 552 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 552 (SCMR) (Nawabzada MUHAMMAD SHAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL LAND DISPUTES and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.5.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑ The petitioner impugned the order of the High Court, dated 23rd of April, 1984, in Writ Petition No. 420 of 1982 by which the order of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral at Mardan, was upheld. While rejecting the revision filed by Zila Khan and Nematullah, brothers inter se claiming certain land held by Nawabzada Muhammad Shah Khan of Hayaseri, the Tribunal held: "The file does not specifically clarify the land which belonged to the plaintiff /petitioner but if they own any more land which has not been transferred by the aforesaid deeds and that is in possession of the defendant /respondent they are entitled to get it from him." This observation was made while conceding to the petitioner that he legally held 52 Sattas of land. The grievance of the petitioner was that the above observation should not have been made as it has led to the filing of the execution proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Dir, against the petitioner when the Chairman had not declared the respondents to be the owners of the suit property in possession of the petitioner with reference to any specific area, boundaries and Khasra Numbers etc. The High Court while dismissing the petition held that the petitioner was declared as an owner of 52 Sattas of land, but if he held some more land than what was held to be his, the respondents could claim that land and in that context the observation was not perverse. The respondents‑ had claimed that the petitioner had forcibly taken possession of land measuring three rupees equivalent to 330 Sattas and if that was so then after excluding 52 Sattas of land sold to him, the respondents could claim the balance of the area in possession of the petitioner in the absence of any specification with reference to boundaries, area and Khasra Numbers etc. In this view of the matter, the petition is without any substance and is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.