1994 PLP 1317 (CLC)
HABIB ULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER. (REVENUE) and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1317 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | HABIB ULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER. (REVENUE) and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1317 (CLC)?
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 1994 PLP 1317 (CLC)?
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: 1994 PLP 1317 (CLC) (HABIB ULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER. (REVENUE) and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Petitioners.
- Karamat Nazir Bhandari for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Allotment of land‑‑‑Cancellation of‑‑‑Earlier allotment in favour of original allottee was cancelled on the ground that same was bogus‑‑ On filing Constitutional petition by vendee of such land against cancellation of allotment, case was remanded to consider genuineness of allotment, but Authority without properly examining R.L. II of original allottee maintained cancellation order arbitrarily and in a cursory manner‑‑‑Authority having failed to comply with earlier remand order of High Court, order maintaining cancellation of allotment, was set aside and case was again remanded to Notified Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law, after hearing parties. Hamid Ali Mirza, Inayat Hussain Chaudhry, Sarfrazul Hassan and .
Judgment & Decree
Hamid Ali Mirza, Inayat Hussain Chaudhry, Sarfrazul Hassan and . Karamat Nazir Bhandari for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th May, 1993. The petitioners claim to be the vendees from allottee respondent No.5 of an area measuring 928 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in Village Mandiala Waraich, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. This allotment was cancelled by order dated 10‑5‑1978 of the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the same was bogus.
2. Petitioners filed W.P. No. 921‑R/78 and by order dated 18‑11‑1985 this Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the case on an agreed position by the parties that the genuineness of the allotment will be considered by the Settlement Commissioner. After remand the Additional Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala vide his order dated 2‑1‑1986 maintained the cancellation and this order is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of this Court earlier passed has not been complied with and the case has been decided arbitrarily without properly examining the R.L. II of the original allottee. Admittedly R.L. II was in possession of the Anti‑Corruption Department in connection with some cases and the learned Settlement Commissioner summoned the Inspector Anti‑Corruption who was in possession of the said RL‑II and after perusing the same decided the case without affording opportunity to the petitioners to cross‑examine the Police Inspector.
4. I have gone through the impugned order dated 2‑1‑1986 and am of the opinion that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is in a cursory manner and this cannot be said to be the compliance of the order of this Court dated 18‑11‑1985. The learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 informers in this case, and the learned counsel for the petitioners have agreed that the case be remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law. In view of above the impugned order dated 2‑1‑1986 of the chief Settlement Commissioner is set aside and the case is remanded to him/notified officer for fresh decision after hearing all the parties in the case including respondent No. 6 Mr. Javed Nisar who claims to be the subsequent purchaser of the property and this shall be done within 3 months. H.B.T/H‑105/L Order accordingly.