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 Nos. 741 and 1429 of 1980, decided on 5th April, 1984
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court in 925/r, 1446‑R of 1977 dated
3-3-1983.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.10‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine (i) effect of previous Supreme Court judgment on respective pleas of contesting parties; (ii) whether petitioner had locus standi to file Constitutional petition and whether High Court should have allowed relief; and (iii) whether one or other party was entitled to possession of land in dispute.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Salim A. Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record and Raja M. Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 to 13.
S. Majid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and A.R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.8.
Salim Ahmed Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.5 (in C.T.741/1980).
Nemo for Respondents 2 and 3 (in C. P. 1429/1980).
Date of hearing: 5th May, 1984.
‑After hearing all the learned counsel we consider it a fit case to examine inter alias‑‑
What is the effect of the previous Supreme Court judgment on the respective pleas of the contesting parties:
Assuming, as the High Court did that notwithstanding the doubts about the orders of confirmation of allotment in favour of Mst. Sultana Begum petitioner the proposal could be deemed to have been confirmed in due course, whether it could be treated as void, invalid or in any way illegal on any ground including lack of notice to the other party, whose claim was based on allotment which was in fact bogus:
Whether the writ petitioner in the High Court had the locus standi to file Constitutional petition and whether the High Court should, in its discretionary jurisdiction have allowed relief to the writ petitioners.
Whether Mst. Sultana Begum could not be treated as in possession constructive or otherwise for purpose of the same relief which the High Court allowed to the other party; and Whether the latter were not entitled to the same on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment.
Order accordingly.
Security Re. 2,500 each.
2. No alienation of the property in dispute nor any change in its character or status. Security by persons in possession for. mesne profits from date of High Court judgment to the satisfaction of local Tehsildar.
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