1968 SCMR 489 (PLP)
MAQBOOL SULTANA-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LARKANA AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 489 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | MAQBOOL SULTANA-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LARKANA AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 489 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 489 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 489 (PLP) (MAQBOOL SULTANA-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LARKANA AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Naimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Anwar All, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 6th December 1967, in Petition No. 550 of 1967). New ground urged in writ-Dismissal by High Court upheld by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C.J.-The petitioner, Mst. Maqbool Sultana, is in occupation of a house in a village in Larkana District known as Gerrelo, under an allotment order. She is a local. The house was put to auction, and in the notice, the reserve price was shown as Rs. 9,
600. It was knocked down to one Kadeer Ali for Rs. 12,
000. When the matter was placed before an Additional Settlement Commissioner for confirmation, it was pointed out that the rent of the house was shown to be Rs. 100 and its value, according to the accepted formula was Rs. 48,
000. The Additional Settlement Commissioner directed a re-auction, at which it appears the reserve price was entered as Rs. 72,
000. There was no bid, and the Additional Settlement Commissioner thereupon approved the bid of Rs. 12,000 received at the first auction, and directed issue of a P. T. O. Mst. Maqbool Sultana admits that she did not apply for transfer of the house, because its value was in excess of Rs. 10,
000. She alleges she asked for its sale to her by negotiation, but she had no legal right to claim such a sale, After the confirmation of the auction sale, she has been reporting to higher authorities and representing that the price it fetched was too low, and she even went to the length of making an offer of Rs. 72,000 for it, but obtained no relief. She then moved a writ in the High Court which was dismissed summarily. Leave to appeal is now sought. It is quite evident that the petitioner has shown no legal right in herself to the transfer of the property. It has been transferred in accordance with the relevant scheme, and it seems clear she has no locus standi to challenge the transfer. A new ground was advanced in the writ petition, viz., that as the house was situated in the middle of agricultural land, it came under Settlement Scheme No. VII. This was never put frit- ward at any earlier stage, and the High Court found no substance in it. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.