1984 PLP 1412 (CLC)
GHULAB SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1412 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | GHULAB SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1412 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1412 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1412 (CLC) (GHULAB SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Petitioners.
- Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Nawazish AU Asadi for Respondent No. 3.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 14 (I‑A)‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Allotment of cancelled land‑Right of informer‑Petitioners alleging that since informer already sold land he was not entitled to excess allotment‑Member, Board of Revenue directing petitioners to raise objections. regarding allotment of land to informer before allotment authority‑ Petition premature and interference declined. Date of. hearing : 13th June, 1983. Respondent No. 2 applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner saying that on her motion the excess allotment of land had been cancelled from the name of the writ‑petitioners by the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 7‑7‑1979 and that the land so cancelled should be allotted in her favour under section 14 (1‑A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 as an informer. The petitioners whose land had been cancelled also appeared before the learned Member, Board of Revenue and submitted that since the informer had already sold her pending units to others the informer was not entitled to allotment of the land and the land cancelled from the names of the petitioners should be sold in their favour for which they had also earlier requested the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settle ment Commissioner who had cancelled the excess allotment that the area be sold to them as they had brought it under cultivation with great labour.4. The learned Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation)/Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 19‑I1‑1979 observed that "since the inform‑.r has the preferential right to get allotment of the resumed land in terms of section 14 (la) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, therefore the land may be adjusted against the unsatisfied P.
1. Units, if any of the claimant/informer. The respon dents, if so advised, could raise their objection before the allotting authority".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the informer had already sold the units, therefore, the informer was not entitled to allotment and their applications should have been straightaway rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
3. A persual of the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue quoted above would show that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has directed that the petitioners may raise their objections regarding allotment to the informer before the allotting authority. Therefore, if the petitioners are of the view that the informer is not entitled to allotment because she had sold her units and that they are better entitled to be sold the land being in possession for the requisite period, they may so urge before the allotting authority. The petition is pre‑mature at this stage and calls for no inter ference. It is disposed of accordingly. M. Y. H. Petition disposed of.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Nawazish AU Asadi for Respondent No.
3. Date of. hearing : 13th June, 1983. Respondent No. 2 applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner saying that on her motion the excess allotment of land had been cancelled from the name of the writ‑petitioners by the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 7‑7‑1979 and that the land so cancelled should be allotted in her favour under section 14 (1‑A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 as an informer. The petitioners whose land had been cancelled also appeared before the learned Member, Board of Revenue and submitted that since the informer had already sold her pending units to others the informer was not entitled to allotment of the land and the land cancelled from the names of the petitioners should be sold in their favour for which they had also earlier requested the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settle ment Commissioner who had cancelled the excess allotment that the area be sold to them as they had brought it under cultivation with great labour.4. The learned Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation)/Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 19‑I1‑1979 observed that "since the inform‑.r has the preferential right to get allotment of the resumed land in terms of section 14 (la) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, therefore the land may be adjusted against the unsatisfied P.
1. Units, if any of the claimant/informer. The respon dents, if so advised, could raise their objection before the allotting authority".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the informer had already sold the units, therefore, the informer was not entitled to allotment and their applications should have been straightaway rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
3. A persual of the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue quoted above would show that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has directed that the petitioners may raise their objections regarding allotment to the informer before the allotting authority. Therefore, if the petitioners are of the view that the informer is not entitled to allotment because she had sold her units and that they are better entitled to be sold the land being in possession for the requisite period, they may so urge before the allotting authority. The petition is pre‑mature at this stage and calls for no inter ference. It is disposed of accordingly. M. Y. H. Petition disposed of.