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. 301 of 1975, decided on 26th October, 1980.
(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29‑1‑1975 in Writ Petition No. 54‑R of 1975).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
----Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Settlement Commissioner finding no allotment in favour of petitioner having been shown in Register Haq Daran for year 1964‑65 and as such petitioners claim requiring allot ment made on 21st April, 1962 not substituted‑Settlement Commis sioner further finding revenue record having been interpolated to show petitioner an allottee‑Questions raised being questions of fact, decision of Settlement Commissioner, held, to be accepted as correct. [Question of fact].
Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Ahmad Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th October, 1980.
‑On 21‑4‑1962 land comprising Khasra No. 892 situated in Kamonki was allotted to the petitioner. Ijaz Ahmad filed an appeal against this allotment. This appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 22‑11‑1965 and a revision petition met the same fate at the bands of the Settlement Commissioner on 31‑10‑1969. A Writ Petition No. 1205/R‑69 was consequently filed in the High Court which was dismissed on 18‑3‑1972.
2. Meanwhile on 27‑4‑1965 on a report by the Patwari that the land was available, this Khasra number was allotted to respondent No. 3. The petitioner claims that he was not aware of, it and, therefore, it was only on the 30th of May, 1974 that be filed an appeal against it which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner consequently filed a Writ Petition No. 54‑R/75 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 29‑1‑1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The Settlement Commissioner was of the view that in the Register Haqdaran for the year 1964‑65 should have been shown the allot ment in favour of the petitioner, if any had been made on 21‑4‑196 as claimed by him. He was of the opinion that the revenue record has been interpolated for the purpose of showing that the petitioner was an allottee. These two are questions of fact on which the Settlement Commissioner's decision has to be accepted by this Court as correct and they cannot be used for passing an order interfering with the findings.
4. It was submitted that in a previous litigation the matter had gone upto the Lahore High Court and all along the assumption had been that the petitioner was an allottee of the land. Suffice it to say that the questions whether the petitioner was or was not an allottee of the land or whether a forgery had been committed in the revenue record for his benefit were never agitated in that writ petition. The decision in that writ petition could, therefore, not alter the fate of the appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 30‑5‑1974 or of the writ petition which was dismissed on 29‑1‑1975.
5. This petition has, therefore, no legs to stand upon and is, therefore, 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