1975 PLP 305 (SCMR)
YAQEEN-UD-DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ABDUL MARD AND OTHERS Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 305 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and |
| Parties | YAQEEN-UD-DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ABDUL MARD AND OTHERS Respondent |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV1II of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 305 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV1II of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 305 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 305 (SCMR) (YAQEEN-UD-DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus ABDUL MARD AND OTHERS Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Khalid Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing : 24th February 1975,
- S. M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Khalid Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of tie Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 19th March 1974, in Writ Petition No. 1554/R of 1955. -- S. 20 & Sched., para. 15-Area comprised in industrial concern purchased by respondent from Settlement Department only 41 kanals but respondent encroaching upon 60 kanals of agriculture land stand ing transferred to petitioners-Insertion of correct area of factory in P. T. O. issued to respondents-Prima facie not a material altera tion-Contention that High Court's order holding such alternation to be material was not valid, held, has force--Leave to appeal grantee, to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 20 & Sched., para. 15‑Area comprised in industrial concern purchased by respondent from Settlement Department only 41 kanals but respondent encroaching upon 60 kanals of agriculture land stand ing transferred to petitioners‑Insertion of correct area of factory in P. T. O. issued to respondents‑Prima facie not a material altera tion‑Contention that High Court's order holding such alternation to be material was not valid, held, has force‑‑Leave to appeal grantee, to consider question. S. M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Khawaja Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Khalid Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing : 24th February 1975, MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI J.‑Petitioners have filed extract from the Urban Immovable Property Taxation Record which shows that the area comprised in the Madina Cotton Factory purchased by the respondent from the Settlement Department at a public suction is only 41 kanals. However, the High Court has set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner by which the correct area of the factory was entered in the P. T. O. issued to the petitioners as without lawful authority. Reliance was placed on decided cases in which it has been held that only obvious error, in a P. T. O., can be corrected but no material alteration is permissible. It is urged that no such material alteration .was made in the P. T. O. issued to the respondent. He had purchased the Madina Factory and the area comprised in it was only 4 1 kanals. However, he had encroached upon 60 kanals of agricultural land which stood transferred to the petitioners under the Land Settlement Act anti absolute proprietary rights that come to be vested in him since December 1963, which could not be taken away in ancillary proceedings. In the circumstances, the insertion of the correct area of the Factory in the P. T. O. was, prima facie not a material alteration as held by the High Court. There is force in the contention raised in the petition. We grant leave to appeal. Security Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.