Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 316‑R of 1985, heard on 29th June, 1985.

(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑6‑1985, passed in First Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1985). .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3‑‑Excess allotment‑‑Cancellation of‑‑Cancellation of excess land‑‑Order upheld upto Supreme Court‑‑New round of litigation agitating allotment of excess area in favour of respondent‑‑Plea that petitioners having been in possession of suit land during required period were entitled to its transfer, repelled‑‑Earlier round of litigation having concluded during existence of Act (XIV of 1975) and there being nothing in Act to affect efficacy of concluded decisions, matter could not be re‑opened‑‑Plea based on possession being no longer available in law, petition failed and dismissed.

Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th June, 1985.

.‑‑The petitioners had been found in the result of proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to have received allotment of land in excess of entitlement by 109 units. The additional Settlement Commissioner, however, by his order, dated 10‑4‑1969, allowed them to retain 21 units but cancelled the allotment of the land equivalent to 88 units. The petitioners challenged this cancellation through a civil suit right up to this Court but failed throughout. While dismissing their petition for leave to appeal, on 2‑3‑1977, this Court disapproved of any attempt on their part to re‑agitate the matter on the Settlement side, holding that the litigation in the matter is "justly concluded".

2. Nevertheless, the petitioners again started a new round by challenging the allotment made earlier on 12‑11‑1976 in favour of respondent No. 5, of the excess land cancelled from their name. Their writ petition and I.C.A. having been dismissed, they have now filed this petition for leave to appeal. They base their claim under the proviso to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) on the ground that they having been in possession of the land during the required period, they were entitled to its transfer in their favour. We find no force in the plea. Act XIV of 1975 had already been in existence when the earlier round had concluded. There is also nothing in the Act to affect the efficacy of concluded decisions, which decisions being past and closed could not, therefore, be re‑opened. A plea based on possession was no longer available in law to the petitioners. The petition fails and is accordingly 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.