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.
Constitutional Petition No. S. 107 of 1977, decided on 1st April 1978.
‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XI V of 1975), S. 3 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Allotment in favour of respondent made in 1959 and mutation ordered in his favour‑Settlement Authorities, held, had no jurisdiction to re‑open closed matter in 1977 after repeal of Settlement Law.
Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioners.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (absent).
Date of hearing : 1st April, 1978.
The petitioners are purchasers of the land in dispute from the claimant allottee Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, the respondent No. 2 berein. Parchi Takseem Kbatooni in favour of respondent No. 2 is dated IIth August, 1959. A mutation order in his favour is dated 1st December, 1969. On 9th August, 1977 record of rights was changed in the name of respondent No. 2 following which the petitioners purchased the same land. It would appear that in August, 1977 one Major Iftikhar claimed the allotment of this land as from 15th February, 1960 and as it appeared to the Deputy Commissioner to be a case of double allotment, he enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion, firstly that the said‑ Major Iftikhar was a later allottee who was allotted the land on 15tb February, 1960 and moreover had not paid the price of the surrendered land.
2. The petitioners have now received a notice from the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Nawabshah to appear before him in response be an order made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah for re‑opening the matter and cancelling the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 2 and for the dispossession of the petitioners which order is being challenged as without jurisdiction.
3. In so far as the allotment in favour of respondent No. 2' concerned it was made as far back as 11th August, 1959 and the mutation order in his favour dated lst February, 1969 and I am, therefore, unable to see how after the repeal of the Settlement Laws there was any jurisdic tion in the Deputy Commissioner to re‑open a closed matter in the year 1977. Be that as it may, the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to hold in his order dated 17th August, 1977 that the respondent No. 2 was a prior allottee, and refused to disturb this allotment at the instance of one Major Iftikhar. It is not understood how the matter is again sought to be re‑opened in the year 1977 by the impugned notice. The official respon dent has not chosen to defend the petition. The notice is on the face of it without jurisdiction inasmuch as in the absence of any pending matter it was not open to the Settlement Authorities to re‑open an allotment in respect of which no proceedings were pending as on 1st July, 1974.
4. This petition is; therefore, allowed but as the respondents are pot defending the petition, there will be no order as to costs.
M. A. K. Petition accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer