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 Review Petition No. 26 of 1973, decided on 19th February 1976.
(On review from the order of this Court, dated the 12th July 1973. in C. P. S. L. A. No. 557 of 1972 against the order of the Lahore High Court dated the 18th October 1972, in Review Application No. 44 of 1972).
----Ss. 10 & 11‑Laad cancelled from petitioners' name‑Respondents' claim having been received earlier respondents had preferential right to allotment of such land‑Petitioner's predecessor in interest if alive could not claim preference over respondents' claim‑Petitioners, as such, held, could not have preference over respondents.
Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by, S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 8.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 13.
Date of hearing : 19th February 1976.
his is an application asking for review of at order of this Court dated the 12th of July 1973, dismissing the petitioners' petition for special leave to appeal.
Mr. Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed, learned Advocate, appearing in support of the review application has contended before us that although the petitioners had originally been allotted some excess lands, they were, never theless, entitled to retain them as heirs of one Karamat Ali. This conten tion was not advanced before this Court in course of the hearing of the petition for special leave to appeal.
The contention was rained before tire High Court and it was rejected on the ground that the claim in the name of Karamat Ali submitted in Sargodha was received in the village in dispute on the 4th of August 1961. Admitted by, however, the claim of the respondents had been received earlier on the 5th of January 1961. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, accordingly, held that the respondents bad preferential right to the allotment of the, lands which had been cancelled from the name of the petitioners. The; learned Judges of the High Court observed that if Karamat .All himself had been alive, he could not claim preference over the claim of the respon dents and the petitioners, therefore, could not have preference over the respondents. Thus, there is also no merit in the contention.
It has also been contended that the petitioners had applied for certified copies of Khatas Nos. 108, 110 and 111 to prove their case drat the area allotted in the khata of the said Karamat Ali deceased was from the excess area that had been withdrawn from the khatas of the petitioners, and that a new Khata No. 111 was prepared in the name of Karamat Ali in which lesser produce index units were recorded. This reduction the petitioners asserted, was due to the fact that unit bigha was treated as pakka when adjusted in Khata No. 108, and was later treated as kacha while adjusting in Khata No. 111. The petitioners had applied for certified copies of Khatas Non. 108, 110 and 111 but they failed to obtain it as the said khata of the village had been sealed. The petitioners even now have not succeeded in obtaining the copies with the result that their claim in this respect cannot be substantiated. This is no ground for review either.
There is no substance in the petition, and it is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer