Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 716 of 1980, decided on 15th August, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1st April, 1980 in W. P. 416‑R/77).

‑‑‑. Art. 185(3) ‑ Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10 ‑ Allotment of land to respondent as Jammu & Kashmir refugee under relevant scheme as maintenance holder with condition that land could not be allotted to any other claim‑holder Conviction of respondent in a murder case and sentence for 10 years deprived him of allotment because in his absence land was allotted to petitioner against claim without knowledge to respondent‑Respondent challenging allotment to petitioner and succeeding with Settlement Authorities‑Petitioner seeking relief from High Court in its writ jurisdiction against order of Settlement Commissioner on grounds of delayed challenge but failed‑Held, petition was rightly repelled in circumstances‑Leave to appeal refused.

Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 15th Augu6t, 1983.

Petition arises out of a land settlement case. Rehmat Ali respondent was allottee of the disputed land as Jammu and Kashmir refugee, under the relevant Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, as a maintenance holders. It was the condition of this allotment under the Scheme that the land could not be allotted to any other claim holder. Nevertheless on Rehmat All's conviction and incarceration in jail in a murder case for 10 years deprived him of the allotment because in his absence the land was allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners against a claim without the knowledge and notice to him. On release from jail respondent No. 2, challenged the said second allotment and succeeded with the Settlement Authorities. The petitioners sought relief from the High Court in its writ jurisdiction but failed. They have sought leave to appeal.

Learned counsel repeated the same main argument which was considered by High Court namely of delayed challenge by the respondent No. 2, in the circumstances of the case it was rightly repelled on facts stated above. He then argued that the reservation of Jammu and Kashmir refugees' rights regarding Guzara land in the Scheme was without statutory support but failed to advance any cogent reason. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is refused.

M. Z. M. 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.