1989 PLP 2049 (SCMR)
SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2049 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Respondent |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV11I of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2049 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV11I of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2049 (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: 1989 PLP 2049 (SCMR) (SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MAnwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim (since dead) Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing, 19th July, 1988.
- MAnwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim (since dead) Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 31st October 1981 in C.R. No.1137/1981).
S.10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Petitioner had applied for the allotment of premises which were put to auction in 1959--Petitioner neither moved the Settlement Authorities for stopping the auction proceedings nor did he make a bid at the auction--Petitioner filed writ petition in 1971 which was dismissed--Petitioner proceeded with the civil proceedings in 1975 and failed in all the Courts below including the High Court--Held, no interference was called for in the judgment of the High Court in circumstances--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 31 October, 1981. Briefly the facts are that an ice factory in Faisalabad, the allotment of which had been applied for by the petitioner, was put to auction and the highest bid was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 29 August, 1959. However, the auction purchaser failed to deposit the auction price and therefore the property was resumed on 5 January, 1967. The resumption order was challenged by the auction purchaser but the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) dismissed his appeal on 6 May, 1969. The petitioner comes into the picture when he filed a civil suit in 1979 for a declaration that the Settlement Authorities be directed to decide the application of the petitioner submitted for allotment of the said property in 1959 and allot the same to him under the Settlement Scheme. His suit was dismissed for the petitioner was confronted with an order, dated 27 January, 1960 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which showed that his application for allotment of the same had been rejected and he was given time up to 29 February, 1960 to vacate the portion of which he was claiming allotment. Thereafter the passage of 12 years the petitioner filed a writ petition which was rejected. Again the petitioner waited for two more years until he filed the present civil suit in 1975 which was dismissed by the Civil Judge and then his appeal was likewise dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner then challenged the orders of the Courts below by way of civil revision which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. We have heard learned counsel at some length. The High Court has correctly held that the premises were put to auction in 1959 but the petitioner did neither move the Settlement Authorities for stopping the auction proceedings nor did he make a bid at the auction. Thereafter, he did not challenge the auction in favour of the auction purchaser. Instead he riled writ petition in 1971 i.e. after 12 years which was dismissed. He then in 1975 proceeded on the civil side and failed in all the Courts below including the High Court. Since this is the position no interference is called for in the judgment of the High Court. As a result this petition is dismissed. M.A.K./S‑407/S Petition dismissed.