1972 PLP 150 (SCMR)
NOOK MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND),
| Citation | 1972 PLP 150 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 21 & 30(3) as amended on 19‑1‑72‑Revision petition under S. 21 made to High Court on 12‑12‑70 and dismissed on 12‑5‑71-- Provision of new subsection (3) to S. 30 introduced on 19‑1‑72 not attracted. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOK MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 150 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 150 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 21 & 30(3) as amended on 19‑1‑72‑Revision petition under S. 21 made to High Court on 12‑12‑70 and dismissed on 12‑5‑71-- Provision of new subsection (3) to S. 30 introduced on 19‑1‑72 not attracted. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 150 (SCMR) (NOOK MOHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by G. Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th March 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated the 12th May 1971, in Settlement Revision No. 290 of 1970). Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 21 & 30(3) [as amended on 19‑1‑72]‑Revision petition under S. 21 made to High Court on 12‑12‑70 and dismissed on 12‑5‑71-- Provision of new subsection (3) to S. 30 introduced on 19‑1‑72 not attracted.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the land that was allotted to him was wrongly described as Ghair Mumkin and that subsequently the description was corrected as `chair Mumkin Reg'. On the basis of `chair Mumkin Reg the petitioner claimed he was entitled to certain gain in the Produce Index Units. The report sent to the High Court by the Deputy Secretary (Rural) of the Department of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner disclosed that the difference in the description did not cause any loss to the petitioner. The report further stated that as there was no amendment of the Fard‑e‑Haqiat issued by the Central Record Office, the petitioner was not entitled to claim enhancement of the Produce Index Units already issued to him. The learned Judges of the High Court were of the opinion that the matter is concluded by findings of facts, and therefore, they could not interfere with the findings in the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, We are unable to find any fault with the impugned order of the High Court. It has also been contended before us that section 30 of the said Act was amended by the introducing subsection (3) to the section on the 19th of January 1972, and therefore, under the amended section the petitioner became entitled to prefer an appeal or revision before the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as the case might be. The new subsection (3) is in these terms :‑ "Any order passed by a Settlement Commissioner or an Additional, Deputy or Assistant Settlement Commissioner in exercise of any power delegated to him under subsection (2) shall be and shall be deemed always .to have been, subject, to the provisions of Chapter VI in. the same manner and to the* same extent as any other order passed by a Settlement Commissioner, Additional, Deputy or Assistant Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be, is so subject." This contention is not tenable in view of the fact that the revision petition was made before, the High Court on the 12th December 1970, and it was dismissed on the 12th of May 1971, that is, long before the said amendment. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.