1989SCMR933 (PLP)
Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM — Petitioner Versus LAND COMMISSIONER and others — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR933 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM — Petitioner Versus LAND COMMISSIONER and others — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR933 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR933 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR933 (PLP) (Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM — Petitioner Versus LAND COMMISSIONER and others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1988.
- Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24-9-1980 in Writ Petition No. 9976 of 1980).
Para.25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)--Petition for leave to appeal--Limitation--Petition hit by limitation and even otherwise case not fit for condoning delay--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a Land Reforms case. After hearing the learned counsel on the question of limitation in support of the application for condonation of delay, we do not consider it a fit case for the condonation of delay. However, it needs to be noticed and observed that the learned counsel stated that the son of the deceased declarants in this case. We made a grievance that out of the entire permissible area, the petitioner's side hay only one square of land in its possession and that the remaining entire land has been taken away. The learned counsel in these circumstances would help and advise his client to approach the authorities concerned to remove the genuine grievances; which, if any, it is hoped and expected would be removed. This petition accordingly is dismissed without examination of the merits, as time‑barred.