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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 227 of 1969, decided on 24th October 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dated the 12th May 1969, in Writ Peti tion No. 1319/R of 1965).
‑Mortgagees of evacuee lands can be dispossessed by Settlement Authorities without payment of mortgage money Mortgage amount could be recovered under Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) Rules, 1961‑Petition by way of writ, held, misconceived
Rafiq Ahmad Khan Bangash, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 24th October 1969.
The petitioners are mortgagees of the land in dispute measuring 11 acres in Chak Fazal Shah, Tehsil Dipalpur, which belonged to evacuee owners. The mortgage amount is claimed to be Rs. 2,000. This land has been allotted to respon dents 3‑14 by the Collector, Sahiwal, who have been put into possession on the eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the action of the Collector in a writ petition in the High Court, which has been dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners could not be made to quit the land which they were occupying as usufructuary mortgagees, without redemption on payment of the mortgage amount. This contention has no force as the Settlement authorities under the Land Settlement Act can dispossess the mortgagees from the land, in order to put the allottees in possession thereof without payment of the mortgage money. The mortgage amount, however, which may be due to a mortgagee remains a charge on the mortgage property until its satisfaction. The Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) A Rules, 1962; provide an elaborate procedure for filing applications for creation or satisfaction of charges. The learned counsel has further complained that the Collector in this case has assessed Rs. 1,600 as the mortgage amount, although in actual fact, it is Rs. 2,000. We have not been shown the order of the Collector, but if the petitioners are not satisfied with that order, they can challenge it in appeal or revision before the higher Settlement Authorities. The petitioners have miss‑conceived their remedy in approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction in this matter, which has rightly dismissed their writ petition as it was not shown that the impugned order of the Collector was without lawful authority. This petition is dismissed.
Leave dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer