1969 PLP (2) (SCMR)
Sardar MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION, RAWALPI1DI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad and Abdus Sattar, JJ |
| Parties | Sardar MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION, RAWALPI1DI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Jurisdiction |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Jurisdiction as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle‑Akbar, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad and Abdus Sattar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP (2) (SCMR) (Sardar MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION, RAWALPI1DI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. K. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Samad Khan, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, dated the 15th March 1968, in Writ Petition No. 196 of 1962).
‑Person acquiescing a.nl participating in proceed before a tribunal‑Cannot subsequently challenge order to be Without jurisdiction because it went against him.
Judgment & Decree
A. K. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Samad Khan, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd October 1968. ABDUS SA'ITAR, J.‑A piece of land commonly known as Mandi Suraj Bhan was transferred by negotiation to the petitioner by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the approval of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the transfer and directed that Kashmiri refugees should be settled on the land. The petitioner filed a review petition. After hearing the petitioner the order of cancellation was maintained but the land was directed to be put to auction. In a writ petition this order was challenged. The High Court dismissed it the learned Judges took the view that though the first order of cancellation was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in disregard of subsection (5) of section 20 of the displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which provides that no order revising or modifying a previous order shall be passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the person to be affected by the order, the petitioner could not make any grievance about it as he was heard when the second order was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The argument in this regard which was advanced in the high Court has been repeated before us. We think that the High Court took the correct view. It is then contended that the first order of cancellation was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner which could not be reviewed by the Settlement Commissioner in exercise of the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The High Court rightly held that! the petitioner after having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner could not challenge his order because went against him. In any case the High Court in such circumstances could refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.