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. 390 of 1978, decided on 6th July 1978.
(On appeal from the order and judgment of the Lahore High Court. Bahawalpur Circuit, Bahawalpur, in W. P. No. 188‑78/B W P & W. P. No. 2370‑78/LHR, dated 25‑6‑78).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ‑Petitioner claiming to be in possession of State land and praying for an order for maintenance of status quo during pendency of petition before High Court‑Petitioner failing to produce revenue record before High Court and even before Supreme Court in support of his claim‑Order‑of High Court refusing prayer for main tenance of status quo upheld.
Muhammad Mahmood Aslam Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instruct‑.d by S. Abid NAWAZ, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 6th July 1978.
C. J.‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to grant them an order for the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of their petition in regard to the allotment of certain State lands situate in Bahawalpur District. According to the petitioner, the lands in dispute were allotted to their on lease for a period of 10 years from Rabi 1970 to Kharif 1979, but the Collector of the District was threatening to dispossess them. After calling for a report from the Collector, a learned Judge of the High Court has admitted the petitioner's writ petition to full hearing, but has not granted their prayer for the maintenance of status quo as he was not satisfied the petitioners were in possession of the disputed lands.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the High Court has fallen into error in thinking that there was no material on the record to show the possession of the petitioners, as there was a Roznamcha entry to the effect that the petitioners had been given possession of the lands in 1969/1970. He further submits that even in a report submitted by the Collector to the High Court the date of the alleged dispossession of the petitioners is not given, and, therefore, it cannot be said that they had been dispossessed.
We see no merit to these submissions. If the petitioners were, indeed, claiming to be in possession of the disputed lands on the date of filing the writ petition, namely, the 9th of May 1978, it was their duty to satisfy the High Court, by the production of the relevant revenue record, that they were in such possession, but they failed to do so. Even before us no such documentary evidence has been produced. The report submitted by the Collector clearly shows that the lands in dispute have since been allotted to the ejected tenants of the Sheikhupura District, who have already been put into possession. Under these circumstances the High Court was right in refusing the petitioners' prayer for the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the writ petition.
The petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer