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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 219 of 1970, decided on 10th December, 1970:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan Lahore dated the 25th July, 1970, in Settlement Revision No. 90 of 1969).
‑‑‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11‑Respondent‑allottee neither obtaining land in question fraudulently in excess of her entitlement nor same ever cancelled from her name by any competent authority ‑Held: Ss. 10 & 11 not attracted for cancellation of land nor gave locus stands to petitioner for allotment of said land.
‑‑‑‑ S. 22‑Finality of allotment‑Allotment proposed at first instance to claimant and fifteen days allowed to elapse before such proposal finalized‑Confirmation of allotment done in open meeting‑Petitioner neither raising any objection to allotment in favour of respondent nor challenging allotment at any stage‑Allotment, held, became final.
Chaudhri Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
This petition for special leave to arises out of the dismissal of a revision petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court, under section 21 of the Land Settlement Act, against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, rejecting his application, under sections. 10 and 11 of the same Act, for cancellation of the land allotted to respondent No. 5, Mst. Maryam Bibi, in village Sian. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner was that being a sitting allottee in the aforesaid village, he bad a preferential right to the allotment of the land, as against the aforesaid respon dent, whose claim, according to him, had not been validly transferred to that village. The learned Judges of the High Court have observed that sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were not attracted to the case, as it was not shown that the respondent had obtained the land ins question fraudulently in excess of her entitlement, nor was the land in question in her name ever cancelled by any competent person, to give a locus standi to the petitioner to its allotment. It is rightly pointed out in the High Court's order that according to the procedure, an allotment is proposed in the first' instance, to a claimant‑ and fifteen days are allowed to elapse before the proposal is finalized. The confirmation of the allotment is done in au open meeting. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the allotment in favour of the respondent, nor did be at any stage challenge that allotment, which thus, became final.
No defect is apparent in the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in giving this land to the respondent. The revision petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the High Court, and we see no valid ground for interference. This petition is dismissed.
M. A. K. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer