Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 58 and 66 of 1968, decided on 21st May 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 542‑R of 1960).
and Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part II‑Rehabilitation authorities treating non‑allottee at par with sitting allottees-- Action rightly held by High Court to be without lawful authority‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad Khawlja, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Sh. Abdur Rasheed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Azim ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st May 1968.
This will dispose of C. Ps. S. L. A. Nos' 58 and 66 of 1968 which proceed on identical facts. In either case the High Court has in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction set aside the orders of the Rehabilitation authorities whereby 25 acres of land in Chak No. 10‑G, Bahawalpur, were in preference to the respondents sitting. allottees of the Chak allotted to Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners.
Ghulam Muhammad who was not temporary allottee of Chak. No. 10/G had originally filed his claim for Chak No. 257/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, but later on got it transferred to Chak No. 4/Ford Wah. He again got his claim transferred to Chak No. 10/G on 25th August 1957, and on the 15th of February 1958, the disputed land was confirmed in his name although the verified claim of the respondents who were settled in this Chak since long had not yet been satisfied. It appears that the sons of Ghulam Muhammad were allottees of land in Chak No. 4/Ford Wah which was subsequently declared to be an Urban area and consequent upon it the allottees in that Chak were allowed to transfer their claims to any other estate where they were to be treated at par with the sitting allottees. This concession could not be made available to Ghulam Muhammad as he was not an allottee of Chak No. 4/Ford Wah, but the Rehabilitation authorities treated him at par with the respon dents in favour of his sons in the former Chak. In this the Rehabilitation authorities had plainly acted without lawful authority and the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the allotment of the disputed land in favour of Ghulam Muhammad.
The petition for leave to appeal has thus little merit and we hereby dismiss it.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer