1985 PLP 478 (SCMR)
ATA ULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 478 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ATA ULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 478 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 478 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 478 (SCMR) (ATA ULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Munir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Transfer of land challenged under Constitutional jurisdiction ‑‑Leave to appeal refused on ground that petitioner having received allotment of land under Scheme VI was claiming other portions as urban plots‑‑High Court held justified in declining to interfere with finding of fact. Syed Munir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984. M.S.H.QURAISHI, J.‑‑ From the land comprising Khasra Nos. 931, 933, 934, 935, 942, 945 and 2103, situate in village Mian Mir, within the municipal limits of the City of Lahore, the first two Khasra numbers were transferred to the Petitioner's father under Scheme No.VI and the remaining to the respondent's as agricultural land. This transfer in favour of the respondents was disputed by the petitioner who moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, contending that the property, according to the Special Jamabandi of 1946‑47, was " QABIL-E-TAMEER SHEHRI URBAN " and not agricultural land. The Settlement authorities after examining the revenue records for the period both prior and subsequent to 1947, came to the finding that the property was 'nehri' and cultivated by the petitioner's father as agricultural land. The High Court declined to go behind the above finding of fact and accordingly dismissed the petitioner's writ petition by the impugned order dated 11‑1‑1981.
2. We find no merit in this petition for leave to appeal, not only for the reason that the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with a finding of fact but also because the petitioner having already received allotment of Khasras Nos.931 and 933 under Scheme No. VI could not lay claim to transfer in his favour of other portions of the land upon an assertion that the same were urban plots. The petition is dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.