Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 966 of 1982, heard on 11th March, 1984.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑5‑1982 in Civil Revision No.369 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑State land‑‑Grant of land under Tube‑well Sinking Scheme‑‑Land resumed on ground of failure of grantee to fulfill conditions of grant‑‑Statement of petitioner's witness establishing that before resumption of grant notice was issued to petitioner and record showing that same was served‑‑Appellate Court and High Court both concurring in factual finding that resumption of grant was not without service of proper notice‑‑No question of needing further examination‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th March, 1984.

.‑‑ The petitioner who was the unsuccessful plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑5‑1982 whereby his civil revision petition was dismissed.

The petitioner was a grantee of land under Tube‑well Sinking Scheme under the Development Authority. He received the possession of the land on 1‑8‑1953. It was resumed from him in the year 1958 on the ground of non‑fulfillment of the conditions of the grant. He instituted a civil suit in the year 1979 challenging the resumption of the grant from him on the ground mainly that he had received no notice and was not afforded hearing in the matter. His suit was decreed on 14‑7‑1980 but on appeal the Additional District Judge on 3‑3‑1982 reversed the decision holding that the petitioner had received due notice of the proceedings culminating in resumption of the grant. The petitioner then approached the High Court in civil revision, which too was dismissed by the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that from the evidence on record it was established that no show‑cause notice had been given to the grantee before resuming the grant.

We have examined the statement of petitioner's own witness Shamshad Hussain which has the effect of establishing that before the resumption of the grant was ordered, notice was issued to the petitioner and there was material on record to show that it was served. The A petitioner did not personally appear to repudiate such evidence. The Additional District Judge and the learned Judge in the High Court both concurred in the factual finding that the resumption of the grant was not without service of proper notice.

In the circumstances, there is no question of law to be further examined and leave to appeal is refused.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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