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 Petitions Nos. 141/R and 142/11 of 1986, decided on 14th October, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑3‑1986 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 1903/1) and 1904/1) of 1983).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VI‑‑Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), Ss. 14 & 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Dispute about character of such property‑‑Evacuee trust property‑ Bar to jurisdiction of civil Court‑‑Claim of respondents' ownership by virtue of P. T . D . having been issued in their favour disputed by Evacuee Trust Board‑‑Respondents' suits for declaration and perpetual injunction decreed and decisions upheld in revisions‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that (i) suits of plaintiffs were not maintainable in view of pendency of their reference application before Board for determination of nature of property; (ii) that civil Court was not competent to grant any declaration in view of provisions of Act (XIII of 1975), and S. 9, C.P.C. and (iii) that leave to appeal had already been granted for consideration of similar questions‑‑Connected cases directed to be heard together.
1986 S C M R 1209 ref.
Ch. Fazal‑i‑Husain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th October, 1986.
This order will dispose of the above two petitions which arise out of a common judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in connected Civil Revision Petitions. The property involved in the two petitions is identical and the questions of law decided are also common.
2. The dispute in these petitions relates to plots situate at the junction of Waris Road and Queens Road, Lahore. It was treated as evacuee trust property and was transferred to Rehmatullah under Settlement Scheme No. 6 under Settlement Laws. Rehmatullah surrendered his rights in the plots in favour of Mst. Zakia Begum who on payment of the price was granted a P.T.D., on 3‑10‑1967. It appears that when the respondent Mst. Zakia Begum intended to raise some constructions on the plot, the Trust Board objected to the same claiming that the property vested in the Board as evacuee trust property. Mst. Zakia Begum claimed that she had acquired ownership right in the property by virtue of the P.T.D. In view of such controversy the respondent Mst. Zakia Begum filed two suits against the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for perpetual injunction. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed all of which were decided in favour of plaintiff Mst. Zakia Begum and the suit was decreed. The judgment and decree passed in the suit were challenged by the petitioner in two appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 22‑1‑1983. This gave rise to the filing of the two revision applications which were decided as per impugned judgment.
3. It may be mentioned here that the respondent had admittedly filed a reference before the Board for determination of the nature of the property before the Chairman Evacuee Trust Board which was pending at the time of the filing of the suits. In view of the background of the above facts it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suits of the plaintiffs were not maintainable in view of the pendency of her reference applications before the Board. It was further contended that the Civil Court was not competent to grant any declaration in view of the provisions of Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and section 9, C.P.C. The learned counsel has also referred to us a leave granting order, dated 5‑4‑1986 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 145/11 and 146/11 of 1984 wherein somewhat similar question is involved for consideration.
4. The above contentions need examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. The appeals arising out of these petitions shall be heard along with appeals arising out of Civil Petitions Nos. 145/R and 146/11 of 1984 in which leave has already been granted as per order, dated 5th April, 1986. Stay already granted in Civil Petition . No. 141/R of 1986 shall continue pending, disposal of .the appeal. Same stay in Civil Petition No. 142/11 of 1986.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer