Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

JALAL SHAH versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE


Article 3 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) Leave for appeal The question is whether the applicants did not complete this title with negative possession before 1st March 1947 on the basis of record of income and what was The Court is not justified in holding this section of the benefit? 3 Only available to people who have property under legal authority Allow questions related to the importance of the general public
1983SCMR 614

Present : A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle Akbar, J

JALAL SHAH AHD OTHERS‑Petitioners

versus

CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE

AND 14 OTHERS‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 624 of 1966, decided on 28th March, 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th November, 1966, in Writ Petition No. 508 of 1963).

Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)‑

‑‑ S. 3‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ‑ Leave to appeal ‑Question whether petitioners had not perfected title by adverse possession prior to 1st March, 1947 on basis of revenue record and whether High Court not justified in holding that benefit of S. 3 available only to persons who possessed property under lawful authority‑Questions raised of general public. importance‑Leave to appeal granted.

Abdur Rasheed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Maqbool Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 28th March, 1967.

ORDER

FAZALE AKBAR, J.‑

:The dispute in this case is with respect to 1,418 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land of Khewat No. 2 in Mouza Ahmad Sbah in the Tehsil and District of Montgomery (Sahiwal).

The said lands belonged to Hindus who became evacuees on Partition of India. The petitioners who own the lands of Khewat No. 1, are claiming title to the disputed lands by adverse possession for more than 12 years before March, 1947. In 1961, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner out of the said land allotted 408 Kanals and 5 Marlas to respondents Nos. 4 to 11. The petitioners then filed a petition under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XII of 1957) for a declaration that they were owners of the said land and that it was not an evacuee property and their petition was accepted by the Deputy Custodian. On appeal by the allottees, the Custodian remanded the case to the Deputy Custodian who thereafter rejected the application and his order was also upheld on appeal by the Custodian. They then moved a writ in the High Court, but the same was dismissed. It may be mentioned here that their contention that the land not having been treated as evacuee property up to 1961 their possession was protected by section 3 of Act XII of 1957, was not at all considered by the Deputy Custodian or the Custodian.

The learned Judges of the High Court found that the petitioners had failed to prove their adverse possession for more than 12 years before 1st March, 1947. They then relying on the Full Bench decision of that Court in Syed Ali Iqtiaar Shah and others v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan (P L D 1964 Lab. 724), held that protection of section 3 was not available to parties who were in unauthorized possession or management of evacuee properties.

Mr. Abdur Rasheed, the learned counsel, has contended, inter alia:

(i) that the finding that the petitioners had not perfected the title b adverse possession prior to 1st March, 1947, was not based on proper appreciation of the entries in the revenue records on which the petitioners relied, and

(ii) that in view of the language of section 3 of the Act the High Court was not justified in holding that the benefit of the said section was available only to persons who possessed the property under lawful authority. As the questions raised require interpretation of section 3 and some other sections of Act XJI of 1957, which are of general public importance, we grant leave to appeal on the above as well as the other points raised in the petition.

Security for costs‑‑Rs: 1,000.

Slay already granted will continue till disposal of the appeal.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates phone number from Mithi lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.