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.
Writ Petition No. 69/R of 1977, decided on 24th November,1986.
‑‑S. 2‑‑Cancellation of land‑‑Notified Officer cancelling land in dispute from name of petitioner's deceased husband on reaching the finding that claim, against which allotment was obtained, was bogus and stood cancelled‑‑Counsel for respondent asserting that since land in question belonged to locals who were its real owners, it was no longer an evacuee property‑‑Held, any further proceedings on part of High Court would be an idle ceremony and that petitioner was free to find out whether assertion made by counsel for respondents was false in which case petitioner could move an application to High Court for recall of this order‑‑Interference declined by High Court.
Rai Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Petitioner.
Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Date of hearing: 24th November, 1986.
This writ petition has been filed by one of the legal heirs i.e. wife of Imam Din whereas his other heirs namely, Muhammad Hafeez son and Mst. Rafiqan and Mst. Azizan Begum daughters have been made as respondents 3 to 5 as they are not interested in contesting these proceedings.
2. To be precise, the land in question was cancelled under the orders of a notified officer who was Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jhang by his order dated 15‑9‑1976 with the finding that the claim against which the allotment had been obtained was bogus and stood cancelled. In the course of proceedings taken by the notified officer, respondents 3, 4 and 5 who are real son and daughters of petitioner were heard through their attorney Dr. Muhammad Ismail.
3. There is no averment in the petition that there was estrangement of relations between the mother and the children and since they had a common interest to defend their ancestral land, it is very difficult to believe that the petitioner remained oblivious of the proceedings. Even otherwise, no useful purpose will be served by conceding to the legal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has in any manner suffered for not having been heard. This is for the reason that Ch. Qadir Bukhsh, counsel for legal heirs of deceased informant makes statement at the bar that under the order of the notified officer, the informant was to be given the benefit by way of allotment of land cancelled from the name of heirs of Imam Din. He submits that at the instance of locals who are real owners of the land, a declaration has been obtained from the Custodian and as such the land is no more an evacuee property.
4. In such a situation, I think any further proceedings on the part of this Court would be of no avail and will be merely an idle ceremony. However, I would like to leave it open for the petitioner to be put on inquiry and find out whether the assertion being made by the learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent No. 1 is true and should it be false, it will be open for her to move an applicable for recall of this order.
5. Learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent No.l submits on compassionate grounds that since the legal heirs have been deprived of the only land obtained by them in allotment and they comprise of widow and unmarried daughters, it is rather hard for them to be left without any source of sustenance. I do not think this prayer ought to be made before me. The proper forum for this would be Member, Board of Revenue (S & R) whom the legal heirs of respondent No.l can satisfy that the land which was allotted under the name of Muhammad Sharif, deceased as informant has been withdrawn from the heirs on being declared as Muslim property. If there are provisions or any policy through which alternative land can be given to such like cases, I see no reason why it will be denied to heirs of respondent No.l if they approach the appropriate authority in the Board of Revenue Settlement Department.
6. The net result is that this writ petition is liable to fail and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are spared the costs.
M. Y. H./758/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer