Allotment of evacuee property

2022 YLR 2134 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 22 & 25Allotment of evacuee propertyBar on jurisdiction of Civil Court

Jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of allotment of evacuee property was barred under Ss. 22 & 25 of Displaced Persons(Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and even any decree if passed by the Civil Court would be without jurisdiction, nullity in the eyes of law or void ab-initio in its entirety

Civil revision was allowed.

2014 YLR 41 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 18(2)Allotment of evacuee property

Predecessor-in-interest of respondents had claimed that land in his possession, which he was cultivating, was allotted to him; and that father of appellants with the connivance of Departmental Authorities got allotment in his name after about 5 years of the allotment in his name, without cancelling the same from his name

Proceedings were pending before the Multiple Allotment Judge against father of appellant in respect of said allotment

Rehabilitation Commissioner, cancelled said subsequent allotment of father of the appellants and restored the allotment in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents

Said decision had been upheld up to the High Court

Validity

Father of respondents admittedly was first allottee of land in question, whereas allotment in the name of father of appellants was subsequent one which was made secretly without first cancelling the first allotment in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents

Allotment made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents in the year 1950 therefore, was a valid allotment and he was first allottee of the land

Subsequent allotment in favour of father of appellants, made without cancelling the first allotment was nullity in the eye of law.

2008 PLD 10 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2)Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 189, 190 & 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityJudgment of Supreme CourtFinalityAllotment of evacuee propertyReopening of matterPetitioner was not found entitled for allotment of house in question even by Supreme Court

Subsequently petitioner filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. before Board of Revenue assailing allotment of the house in favour of respondent

Board of Revenue dismissed the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that he was not eligible to file the same

Plea raised by petitioner was that fraud and misrepresentation was committed by respondent in getting allotment in his favour

Validity

Held, it was not possible even to assume for a moment that after dismissal of appeal and review. petition of petitioner by Supreme Court, any scope for re-agitation and reopening of the matter was left open

In the garb of application under S.12(2), C.P.C., petitioner once again launched another attack by abusing and misusing the process of law and of Courts

Import, object and purpose of Arts.189 and 190 of the Constitution could not be defeated by adopting such dubious means, nor it could be permitted to be done by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction

Contention of petitioner as to alleged fraud/ misrepresentation by any other person had no legs to stand upon

Petitioner could not be allowed to drag others into litigation on flimsy allegations when he had lost his case repeatedly upto Supreme Court

On no discoverable principle or basis, any subordinate functionary could undo or stultify effect of judgment of a superior court

Remedy provided by S.12(2) C.P.C. operated within its own folds as interpreted by superior courts

Executive and State functionaries were duty bound to carry out honour and respect the judgments of Supreme Court and not to find faults with the same or act as a stumbling block in implementing the same

High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Board of Revenue dismissing application under S.12(2) C.P.C. filed by petitioner

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

1983 SCMR 246 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Sched, Part I-Allotment of evacuee property-Petitioner surrendering his right in favour of H-Held, petitioner possessed no locus standi to urge transfer in favour of H being valid on ground of properties in question having consisted of two different units.

1981 SCMR 306 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(4) & 10-Allotment of evacuee property-Matter already considered by Settlement authorities and High Court at great length on more than one occasion and disputed questions being of factual nature and no question of law or principle being involved, cases, held, not fit for grant of leave to appeal.

1979 SCMR 22 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Sched.-Allotment of evacuee property-Plots allotted to respondents under orders of Chief Minister and formal allotment letters also issued conferring valuable property rights on them-Such rights, held, rightly found by High Court to be not taken away without affording allottees opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reason for withdrawal of allotment-Administrative authorities, held further, should not act arbitrarily and capriciously.-[Natural justice, principles of].