Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 694 of 1976, decided on 24th October, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑4‑1976 in Writ Petition No. 256‑R of 1974).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 10/11‑‑Transfer of land‑‑High Court taking view that land in dispute was restored to rightful original transferees of land against their duly verified claim after they deposited amount and thus declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction‑‑Order of High Court substantially just and fair‑‑Leave refused.
Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for "Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th October, 1981.
The land in dispute measuring 8 Kanals and 6 Marlas described more fully in the petition was earlier given to the respondents herein, but was later cancelled for default of relevant payment on their part. Thereafter, it was then given to the present petitioners but the respondents ultimately got it restored in their favour from the learned Settlement Commissioner, vide his orders dated 5‑11‑1973 and 20‑12‑1973.
2. The present petitioners challenged the aforesaid orders by means of a constitutional petition 256‑11/74 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 28‑4‑1976. The High Court took note of the various legal or other types of points raised before it but taking the view that the respondents being rightful original transfarees of the land against their duly verified claim, it was not a fit case for its interference if the land ultimately stood restored to them irrespective of certain defect in not depositing the amount in time. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court to this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the record. We agree with the High Court that in view of the reasons given in the impugned order, it was justified in not considering it as a fit case warranting interference. The order of the High Court is substantially just and fair and we find no ground to grant leave to appeal in this case.
4. The result is that this petition is consequently dismissed hereby.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer