1994CLC67 (PLP)
CHUTTAN KHAN‑‑‑petitioner Versus BA.C — Respondent
| Citation | 1994CLC67 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | CHUTTAN KHAN‑‑‑petitioner Versus BA.C — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994CLC67 (PLP)?
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 1994CLC67 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994CLC67 (PLP) (CHUTTAN KHAN‑‑‑petitioner Versus BA.C — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azeem‑ud‑Din Ch. for petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Allotment of land ‑‑‑Cancellation‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Mukhbari application was filed against allottee of land in dispute and a notice was issued to him to appear before Border Area Committee ‑‑‑Allottee had challenged jurisdiction of Border Area Committee to reopen case by filing application in that respect which was entertained‑‑‑Once application of allottee as to jurisdiction of Authority was entertained and same was fixed for arguments, case could not have been proceeded on merits without first deciding objection of petitioner/allottee‑‑‑Allottee's application challenging jurisdiction would be decided first in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Azeem‑ud‑Din Ch. for petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1993. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted the disputed land and he is permanently settled there. A mukhbari application was filed on which notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Border Area Committee on 26‑9‑1981. The present petitioner filed a written application questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent to re‑open the case and the case was fixed for 30‑6‑1982 for arguments on this application. It so happened that on the same day the impugned order was passed for summoning the record and feeling aggrieved against this order, the present Constitutional petition has been filed.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner filed an application through his counsel assailing the jurisdiction of the Border Area Committee, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the case was fixed for arguments and that without first deciding the application of the petitioner, the case could not be proceeded on merits. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent and find that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the application of the petitioner as to the jurisdiction of the Border Area Committee was entertained and the same was fixed for arguments, the case could not have been proceeded on merits without first deciding the objection of the petitioner. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the proceedings before the Committee are mala fide and the petitioner has been permanently settled on the disputed land and it would be against all interests of justice if the matter is re‑opened after several A years. I am afraid it is not possible for me to go into these questions at this stage. The petitioner's application challenging the jurisdiction is pending disposal with the respondent and the same will be decided first in accordance with law within two months. , Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Border Area Committee for 'decision of his application. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T./C‑30/L Petition accepted.