1991 PLP 783 (SCMR)
NOOK HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 783 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and |
| Parties | NOOK HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD 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 783 (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 783 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 783 (SCMR) (NOOK HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1990.
- Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16-8-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, passed in W.P. No. 143-R/76-Bahawalpur).
Ss. 1, 2 & 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Contention that disputed area cancelled from name of allottee thereof had not been given to any body else under order of cancellation of allotment; and even if petitioners had no title to cancelled area, they would still be entitled to be offered same in sale under Act XIV of 1975
Contention raised requiring consideration, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 1, 2 & 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contention that disputed area cancelled from name of allottee thereof had not been given to any body else under order of cancellation of allotment; and even if petitioners had no title to cancelled area, they would still be entitled to be offered same in sale under Act XIV of 1975‑‑‑Contention raised requiring consideration, leave to appeal was granted. Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Dispute relates to an area measuring 11 Bighas 8 Biswas of agricultural land which has been cancelled from the name of one Dona whose sons are the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel submits that the area has not been given to any body else under the impugned orders and even if the petitioners had no title thereto yet they will be entitled to be offered the same for sale under the latest law i.e. Act X IV of 1975.
3. Contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,
000. Status quo. Appeal to be processed on present record subject to filing additional documents if so advised. H.B.T./N‑242/S Leave granted.