Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1039 of 1980, decided on 15th August, 1984.

(From the order, dated 14‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4‑R of 1976).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 12‑‑Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para. 9‑A‑‑Allotment of evacuee land‑‑Petitioner having no locus standi, disputing allotment‑‑Claim of petitioner based on mortgagee units and inheritance, thoroughly examined by High Court and rejected‑‑Impugned order not suffering from any legal defect warranting interference, leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Quraishi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th August, 1984.

In this case the dispute land, measuring 86 Kanals, had been allotted to one Abdul Ghani on 17‑1‑1961. The petitioner disputed the allotment but his plea was turned down by the A.R.C. on 15‑4‑1963 on the ground that as he had already secured allotment in excess of his entitlement, he had no locus standi to dispute the allotment made in favour of Abdul Ghani. The petitioner's appeal also failed on 28‑6‑1965. The petitioner, however, succeeded in revision but the revisional order was challenged by respondents 1 to 4, who had, meanwhile, purchased the land from Abdul Ghani. Their Writ Petition No. 4‑R of 1976 was accepted by the impugned order, dated 14‑5‑1980, whereby the appellate order, dated 28‑6‑1965 was restored.

2. The case of the petitioner is based on (1) mortgagee units and (2) inheritance from Mst. Rashidan. Both the claims are thoroughly examined by the High Court but rejected. The High Court held that allotment against mortgagee units could not be claimed under the Scheme and that petitioner had already received allotment in excess of his share of inheritance from Mst. Rashidan. In any case, it is not shown that the inheritance had devolved prior to 17‑1‑1961 when the allotment had been made in favour of Abdul Ghani. That being so, the case of the petitioner was 'hit by paragraph 9‑A of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.

3. After hearing learned counsel we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court does not suffer from any legal defect such as would call for an interference by this Court. The petition for leave appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

M . I . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.