1988 PLP 499 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, District Faisalabad- -Petitioner Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 499 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, District Faisalabad- -Petitioner Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 499 (SCMR)?
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 1988 PLP 499 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 499 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, District Faisalabad- -Petitioner Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalil Ramdey, Addl. Advocate-General and Rao Muhammad Yusuf, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Kadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th January, 1988.
- SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute between the parties relates to the land falling in Square No.38 of Chak No.224/R.B. in the vicinity of Faisalabad City. It was evacuee property. For the purpose of expansion of Faisalabad City, the Provincial Government exchanged the land in dispute together with some other area with certain State land. As a result the land in dispute ceased to be a part of the compensation pool. The respondents who claimed to be temporary allottees of the land in dispute, filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant Advocate-General made a concession that even though the land in dispute was no longer evacuee property, the Provincial Government was willing to permit it to be confirmed in favour of the respondents in accordance with the relevant law and the Scheme applicable so as to avoid dislocation of the genuine claimants This concession was accepted by the respondents and it was agreed that the best course would be to let the case be examined by a Settlement Commissioner to determine whether the respondents were entitled to the transfer. Apparently no further action was taken by the Settlement Commissioner to determine the entitlement of the respondents. Nevertheless, the respondents filed another writ petition claiming the land in dispute. .4 learned Single Judge in the High Court directed that the land in dispute be confirmed in favour of the respondents in accordance with the earlier order of the High Court. The Government seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order, dated 19-11-1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.716-R of 1981). --S.10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Leave to appeal- Allotment of evacuee land--Leave to appeal granted to Provincial Government to examine contention that in accordance with earlier orders of High Court, Settlement Commissioner was required to determine entitlement of respondents and no such exercise having been carried out, it was not open to High Court to give a direction that land in dispute be confirmed in favour of respondents as they were yet to show that they had an unsatisfied claim which had been transferred to a particular Chak and that they were temporary atlottees of disputed land and till said facts were established no order of confirmation could be made in their favour.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute between the parties relates to the land falling in Square No.38 of Chak No.224/R.B. in the vicinity of Faisalabad City. It was evacuee property. For the purpose of expansion of Faisalabad City, the Provincial Government exchanged the land in dispute together with some other area with certain State land. As a result the land in dispute ceased to be a part of the compensation pool. The respondents who claimed to be temporary allottees of the land in dispute, filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant Advocate-General made a concession that even though the land in dispute was no longer evacuee property, the Provincial Government was willing to permit it to be confirmed in favour of the respondents in accordance with the relevant law and the Scheme applicable so as to avoid dislocation of the genuine claimants This concession was accepted by the respondents and it was agreed that the best course would be to let the case be examined by a Settlement Commissioner to determine whether the respondents were entitled to the transfer. Apparently no further action was taken by the Settlement Commissioner to determine the entitlement of the respondents. Nevertheless, the respondents filed another writ petition claiming the land in dispute. .4 learned Single Judge in the High Court directed that the land in dispute be confirmed in favour of the respondents in accordance with the earlier order of the High Court. The Government seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that in accordance with the earlier order of the High Court the Settlement Commissioner was required to determine the entitlement of the respondents. So far no such exercise has been carried out. In the circumstances it was not open to the High Court to give a direction that the land in dispute be confirmed in favour of the respondents. The respondents are yet to show that they had an unsatisfied claim, that the same had been transferred to Chak No.224/R.B. and that they were temporary allottees of the land in dispute. Till all these facts were established no order of confirmation could be made in their favour.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the Government needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. S.Q./P-32/6 Leave granted.