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.1182 of 1980, decided on 19th August, 1984.
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29‑7‑1980 in Writ Petition No. 608/11 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 12‑‑Double allotment‑‑Petitioner having allotment of land in his name in two villages‑‑On complaint, making statement before Settlement authorities that allotment in other village was without his knowledge, based on misrepresentation and liable to be cancelled‑‑Later challenged cancellation through Constitutional petition‑‑Plea that he did not make said statement not accepted‑‑Petitioner could not ecape consequences of his own admission‑‑Order upheld by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Raja Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th August, 1984.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 29‑7‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a writ petition arising out of a land settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The land was allotted in the name of the petitioners in village Sambli as also in another village Wadala Bechi Ragh. Complaints having been received against the petitioner in respect of the allotment made in his, name, he appeared before the Settlement Authorities and categorically stated that the allotment made in village Wadala was without his knowledge and was based on misrepresentation and thus was liable to be cancelled. Accordingly the said land was cancelled. Despite his earlier stand disclaiming the allotment in village Wadala he challenged the cancellation thereof in the Lahore High Court through a Constitutional petition and the same having been dismissed; he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner never made any statement which was attributed to him. As is noted above similar plea were raised before the High Court but the same was not accepted.
4. We after hearing the learned counsel at some length in this behalf agree with the judgment of the High Court that the petitioner cannot escape the consequences of his own admission. That being so this petition is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer