Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 322/R of 1984, decided on 2nd July, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1984 in Writ Petition No. 258/R of 1975).

---Arts. 185(3) & 199--Allotment of land in excess of entitlement- Cancellation of--High Court's order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction, remanding case for decision afresh, challenged--Held: Impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity because High Court had dealt with question involved in petition and had extensively quoted from authorities on points distinguishing them from facts of present petition--Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

M. Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1986.

By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1984 passed in Writ Petition 258/R of 1975.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are that land measuring 3 Kanals in Khasra No. 20/1/1 Square No. 22-Chak 207/BB Tehsil and District Faislabad was temporarily allotted to Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Habib and Abdul Hamid sons of Muhammad Ismail. Later on it was found that the allotment order was in excess of the entitlement of the aforesaid persons. Its possession was resumed from them and confirmed in the names of Akram, Irfan, Parvez Javed, Mat. Farkhanda and Rakhshanda the successors-in-interest of Mst. Ghafooran and Imdad Ali vide order dated 30-5-1957 of A . R . C . (Lands). Muhammad Amin and others preferred an appeal against the cancellation of their allotment which resulted in their favour and the order dated 30-5-1957 of A . R . C . (Lands) was recalled. It was ordered that the land be kept reserved till such time that the entitlement of Muhammad Amin and others was verified by the Central Record Office. As no verification result could be made available by the Central Record Office, the land in question was allotted and confirmed in the name of Muhammad Sharif respondent and others vide order dated 8-1-1961 by the A . R . C . ; who sold the same to Muhammad Ramzan. However, order dated 8-1-1961 was challenged before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) through two separate appeals which were accepted per order, dated 1-10-1965 and the case was remanded for reconsideration on merits in accordance with certain directions. Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Ramzan took the matter to the Settlement Commissioner on the revisional side, but did not succeed. Consequently, they assailed the aforesaid order dated I-10-1965 before the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 331/R of 1967 which was allowed vide order dated 19-11-1973 setting aside the order dated 3-1-1967 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), for decision afresh The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in exercise of his powers of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sargodha recalled the allotment order dated 8-1-1961 in favour of Muhammad Sharif and confirmed the said piece of land in favour of Muhammad Amin and others. Muhammad Sharif alone without impleading his vendee Muhammad Ramzan or his legal heirs, either as co-petitioners or respondents sought the setting aside of the order dated 19-3-1975 by filing Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court. Learned High Court Judge, while dealing with the matter, came to the conclusion that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice, and per order dated 15-10-1984, set aside the order impugned before him and remitted the case to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and directed that the matter be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order from the High Court.

3. Learned counsel stressed that the vendee who was a co-petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner was not a necessary party; that the vendor, whose presence was recorded on a number of dates by the Settlement Commissioner, could not be believed on account of his affidavit submitted in the writ petition. In the alternative he submitted that the question of fact regarding the respondents' presence and service recorded by the Settlement Commissioner could not be investigated in the writ jurisdiction; and, finally that the vendor in the instant case, had no locus standi to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel. We hold that the impugned order of the learned High Court Judge does not suffer from any infirmity because the learned Judge has dealt with the question involved in the petition and has extensively quoted from the authorities on the points distinguishing them from the facts of the present petition. We find no merit in this petition which is, consequently, 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.