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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 49 of 1972, decided on 30th June 1972.
(On Appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 16th August 1971, in L. P. A. No. 180 of 1971).
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958),
S. 15‑Refusal to confirm proposed allotment on ground of inquiry being instituted with regard to genuineness of claim‑High Court directing Settlement Department to tentatively confirm land proposed in favour of claimant pending result of inquiry‑Confirmation of allotment being only temporary, order of High Court, held, valid.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 30th June 1972.
The respondent, Mirza Mahmood Ali Beg, who is a claimant, got his claim registered in villages Pattal Munda and Perhar Munda, in Muzaffargarh District, but the Settlement Department refused to confirm the proposed allotment in his favour under the scheme, as an inquiry had been instituted with regard to the genuineness of his claim. This meant that the respondent's allotment could be cancelled or reduced in case his entitlement was found to be untenable wholly or partially. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge in chambers, who directed that the land proposed in favour of the respondent in the two villages mentioned above, be confirmed pending the result of the inquiry, which has already been instituted. The petitioner, who is a Settlement Commissioner, with no apparent personal interest in this land, first sought a review of the order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed, and then filed a Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. He has now come to this Court with a petition for special leave to appeal.
On our repeated inquiries as to why, in spite of .his admission that he was in no way interested in this land personally, he was insistently opposing the confirmation in favour of the respondent, he has stated that there were other petty claimants whose claims were pending in this estate, which had been received before the claim of the respondent, and which had, therefore, to be given priority. But the persons, who are alleged to have been prejudicially affected by the High Court's order in favour of the respondent, have not moved in the matter, and we are unable to comprehend why is the petitioner fighting their battle. Nonethe less, however, altruistic the motive of the petitioner may be, as professed by him, we see no 'substance in this petition. The confirmation in favour of the respondent has been ordered by the High Court only tentatively, as it was being delayed illegally and without cause. The order of the High Court makes it clear that this confirmation will be subject to the result of the inquiry, which is pending in the matter. This should allay the apprehen sions of the petitioner and all others concerned in tile matter.
This petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer