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.30 of 1976, decided on 22nd March, 1982.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑9‑1975, passed in 812‑R‑68).
‑Art.185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10, 18 & 19‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that after confirmation of land in dispute to petitioners and after dismissal of respondent's revision petition, respondents could not successfully agitate claim to said land and that besides widow and her minor children three other Persons were not entitled to any indulgence.
Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1982.
The revision petition of respondents Nos. 2 to 8 against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner in default on 10‑10‑1967. But it was restored by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 13‑4‑1968 on humanitarian grounds namely, that petitioners before him (respondents 2, 6 to 8 herein) were a widow and her minor children. The writ petition filed by the petitioners against this order failed. Hence this petition for Leave to Appeal.
2. Raja Afrasiab Khan, in support of this petition for Leave to appeal contends, inter alia, that:‑
(i) the contesting respondents have after the confirmation of the land in dispute to the petitioners on 7‑6‑1966 and the delivery of the possession to them and the dismissal of their revision petition, retransferred their units from Sialkot District and cannot, therefore, now successfully agitate their claim to the land in dispute; and
(ii) that while restoring the petition dismissed in default, the learned Settlement Commissioner and the High Court overlooked that besides the widow (respondent No.2 herein) and her minor children (respondents 6 to 8 herein) there were three other persons (respondents 3 to 5 herein), who were majors and were not entitled to any indulgence.
Notice was issued to the respondents by this Court on three different dates but no one has turned up. There appears to be substance in the two contentions raised by the petitioners' learned counsel.
Leave is, therefore, granted to consider the same.
Security in the sum of Rs.2,500.
S. Q. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer