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 No.1370 of 1980, decided on 19th August, 1984.
(From the order dated 21-9-1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.669-R of 1980).
---Art. 185(3)--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.19--Mode of re-verification of entitlement--High Court holding that "irrespective of the mode of verification of entitlement of respondent it has been found as, a fact that he was entitled to 423 units"--Nothing was produced before High Court to show that conclusion of fact was incorrect--Finding no merit in petition, Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal.
Muhammad Rafique Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th August, 1984.
In the earlier Writ Petition No.729/R of 1970, between the same parties, the High Court had, on 6-6-1977, by consent of the parties, remanded the matter to the Settlement Commis sioner with the direction that the disputed land measuring about 36 Kanals in village Dunyapur, Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan, be allotted to respondent No.2 "if on re-verification some units are found pending satisfaction in his favour" but that if the respondent had no pending claim, the allotment made to the petitioners was to remain intact. The learned Settlement Commissioner called for a report from the Officer Incharge, Central Record Room, Board of Revenue, according to which the respondent was entitled to get 423 units. As he had a prior right to allotment, the disputed land was confirmed in his favour in satisfaction of his pending units vide order dated 20-8-1980. The petitioners chal lenged the order by filing Writ Petition No.669-R of 1980 but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 21-9-1980.
2. The grievance is as to the mode of re-verification. This plea has been dealt with by the High Court and it has been held that "Irrespective of the mode of verification of the entitlement of respondent No.2, it has been found as a fact that he was entitled to 423 units". Nothing was produced before the High Court to show that the conclusion of fact in regard to the entitlement of the respondent was incorrect. There is, therefore, no merit in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer