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.
Writ Petition No. 1429-R of 1977 heard on 11th April. 1985.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----
----Art. 199--Evacuee Property and Displaced Person Laws (Repeal. Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3--Title in evacuee property through purchase--Title of predecessor-in-interest of vendee's having extinguished by action of Settlement Authority, petitioner's title also extinguished--Representative of Settlement Authority suggesting in High Court that title of predecessors-in-interest having been rightly extinguished, vendee might apply for purchase of :and under Act XIV of 1976--Held, in interest of justice and parties, impugned order extinguished, title of vendee was not to be interfered with--Petition was disposed of with direction that petitioners should be sold land in dispute provided they fulfil conditions for sale as laid down under Act XIV of 1975--Rights of vendors/allottees having been extinguished their units released might tic adjusted else where in accordance with law.
Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioners.
Ch. Muhammad Nazeer Ahmad for Respondent No.
Ch. Muhammad Ismail for Respondent No. 2
Nemo for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 17th April, 1985.
Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 claim to have purchased land measuring 58 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in village Chuhang Khurd, Tehsil and District Lahore, vide mutation No. 348 sanctioned on 21-8-1976. Petitioner No. 3 claims to have purchased land measuring 8 Kanals in village Gohawa, Tehsil and District Lahore, vide mutation No. 493 sanctioned on 21-4-1973. The title of the petitioners ultimate predecessor--in-interest has been extinguished under the order of the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 6-10-1977. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not heard before the impugned order was passed. Even the names of the two petitioners were not mentioned in the citation in the newspaper. It is secondly contended that the petitioners being bona fide purchasers, on the basis of public record were entitled to protection of their rights. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioners having remained in possession of the requisite period are, in any case, entitled to be offered the land for sale.
3. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department submits that the title of the petitioners ultimate predecessor-in-interest has rightly been extinguished under the impugned order. However, the petitioners may apply for purchase of the land under their possession under Act XIV of 1975.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, to whom the land in question has since been allotted, has submitted that in order to avoid continuous litigation the said respondent has instructed him and on his own authority he submits that the land in dispute may be sold to the petitioners by the Settlement Authorities and the said respondents' units released be adjusted against some other available land.
5. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, it appears to be in the interest of justice and the parties that though the impugned order, dated 6-10-1977 is not to be interfered with, yet the petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall be sold the land in dispute provided they fulfil the condition of sale for sale as laid clown under Act XIV of 1975 and the rights, of the respondent No. 2 the extent of the aforesaid land allotted to him shall stand extinguished but the units released may be adjusted elsewhere if, accordance with law. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
A. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer