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 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 225 and 412 of 1980, decided on 11th October, 1983.
(Against the judgments of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 6th November, 1979 passed in I . C . A . No.161 of 1979 and I . C . A . No.160 of 1979, dismissing Writ Petitions Nos.882‑R‑78 and 881‑R‑78, respectively)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.10‑‑ Transfer of evacuee property‑‑ Mukhbari application‑‑Such application not only rejected by Settlement Authorities but not succeeding in High Court either‑‑No good ground made out for interference with impugned judgment‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain; Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for the Settlement Department.
Date of hearing: 11th October, 1983.
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J
.‑‑ This order will dispose of two petitions namely (i) C.P.S.L.A. No.225/80 filed by Niaz Ali and another, (ii) C.P.S.L.A. No.412/80 filed by Riaz Ali and another, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their I.C.As. (No.161/79 and 160/79) respectively, the main judgment having been recorded in I. C. A . r4o.160/79 on 6‑11 1979
2. The fact giving rise to these petitions are, briefly, that they filed mukhbari applications against Sultan Ali respondent No.l (in C.P. No.225/80) and Sardar respondent No.l (in C.P. No.412/80) in Village Zafarwal against their claims. The said mukhbari applications were, however, dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners challenged the orders of dismissal through writ petitions in the High Court but these were also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court by the same order, dated 24‑4‑1979. They then filed two separate I.C.As which too, were dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petitions.
3. We have heard the petitioners' counsel at some length. We notice that petitioner's mukhbari applications in these cases were not only rejected by the Settlement authorities but they did not succeed before the High Court before us the learned counsel has not been able to make good ground for interference with the impugned judgment. Leave is. therefore, refused in both the petitions.
S.Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer