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 No. 768 of 1981, decided on 26th October, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5‑5‑1981. of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2196 of 1978).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
----Art. 185(3) read with Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act.(V of 1912), Ss. 19 & 31‑Contention that Ss. 19 & 32 could not be used for settling private disputes of title and authorities under Act not empowered to direct dispossession of petitioner and delivery of possession to respondents, held, involves a substantial question of law‑Leave to appeal granted.
Wasim Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Atta‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan MAO, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 4 to 10.
Date of hearing : 26th October, 1981,
‑The question raised is that the authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 did no have the power to direct the dispossession of the petitioners and the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to the respondents under the provision of sections 19 and 32 of the said Act because it is contended that the aforesaid sections could not be used for settling private dispute of title. In this connection reference is made to Ata Muhammad and others v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (P L D 1964 Lah. 224) which in turn refers to Ali Muhammad v. Hakim (A I R 1928 Lah. 121) and Jiwana v. Mst. Sahbi (P L D 1954 Lah. 253). Although the learned counsel for the respondents attempted to meet this plea by referring to Ghulam Basul and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others (1969 S C M R 254), Abdul Shakoor and others v. A. S. Tasneem and others (1974 S C M R 463) and Muhammad Shafi and others v. Hayat Khan and others (P L D 1978 Lah. 1228), we consider that the point raised does involve a substantial question of law of general public importance. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
Interim order dated 9‑9‑1981 to continue meanwhile.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer