1991 PLP 1641 (SCMR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN and 11 others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1641 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN and 11 others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1641 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1641 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1641 (SCMR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN and 11 others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 26th August, 1989.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 4-6-1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1341/D of 1986)
Para.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petitioners claimed that they being `Adna Malikan' in land in dispute which was stated to be `Shamlat Deh', had become full owners thereof by nature of provisions of M.L.R.64-- Claim of petitioners, however, was rejected on ground that at time of enforcement of M.L.R.64 there was neither any such entry in record-of-rights nor there was any possibility of treating land as under Adna Malkiyat of petitioners
Questions, whether petitioners were entered as Adna Malikan in record of rights or other Revenue Record which entries were changed subsequently and whether such change was unlawful and if so what would be effect of such change, required-examination
Leave to appeal was granted to examine these questions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. Earlier their suit and appeal before the District Court stood dismissed. The petitioners claim to be the Adna Malikan in the land in dispute, which is stated to be Shamlat Deh. Their claim that on account of this factual position they became full owners by virtue of the provisions of M.L.R. 64 enforced in 1959, has not been accepted mainly on the ground that the suit land stood partitioned in 1956 and at the time of the enforcement of the said law there was no such entry or possibility of treating the land as under the Adna Malkiyat of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the basic pleas raised in this case have not been considered. Firstly, the petitioners' position of being Adna Malkan could not be changed into Ghair Dakhilkaran; that the alleged partition without associating the petitioners as Adna Malkan of the land is neither binding on the petitioners nor relevant for the disposal of the petitioners' suit; and lastly, that the said partition or consolidation of holdings which purported to have changed the position would not change the entry from Adna Malkan to Ghair Dakhilkaran. If it is so held to be invalid the same would lose its importance as deciding factor in this case. Learned counsel for the caveator tried to confidently assert that there was never an entry of Adna Malkan in favour of the petitioners, therefore, there is no basis at all for the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. On this learned counsel for the petitioners showed some entries from his brief to learned counsel for the respondents to which the latter replied that they were not of binding character nor were they in accordance with the real facts. Be that as it may, the question; whether. the petitioners were entered as Adna Malkan in the record of rights or other Revenue Record which entries were changed subsequently; and whether, such change was unlawful; and lastly, if so what would be the effect of such change, would require examination. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal. The application for interim relief having earlier been dismissed on 14‑6‑1989, the petitioners may, if so advised, file fresh application in that behalf provided no change of position has taken place for the last about three years. H.B.T./G‑240/S Leave granted.