1968 PLP 531 (SCMR)
Syed ALE AHMAD KAZMI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 531 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | Syed ALE AHMAD KAZMI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 531 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 531 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 531 (SCMR) (Syed ALE AHMAD KAZMI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 30th November 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 309 of 1966), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)- Writ Petition dismissed on ground of lathes-Delay Patent Rights in land meanwhile secured Fb others-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The simple position is that an order made in the Rehabilitation Department, to the detriment of a claim submitted by the petitioners in October 1959, was not challenged by them, until February 1966, by a review petition, which in its terms, not seeking merely correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, was not competent. Against the dismissal of this review petition, a writ was moved in the High Court, which was dismissed on the ground of laches. The respondents had been settled for a number of years on the land in question in the mean time. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. Leave is sought to appeal against the latter order. The aches in the case appears plainly. Rights in the land have now been secured to others. The writ was rightly refused. We dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.