| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1111 2022 SLD 1111 2022 SCMR 1592 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1009 of 2010 and 933-L of 2013, decision Dated: 07-12-2017, hearing Date : 07-12-2017. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in W.P. No. 1673 of 2000)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmad Nawaz Ch., Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1009 of 2010 and
Respondents Nos. 2, 3 (L.Rs.) (in C.A. No. 933 of 2013)). Razzaq A. Mirza, Additional A.G. Punjab for Appellants
Civil Appeals Nos. 1009 of 2010 and 933-L of 2013, decision Dated: 07-12-2017, hearing Date : 07-12-2017. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in W.P. No. 1673 of 2000)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmad Nawaz Ch., Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1009 of 2010 and
Respondents Nos. 2, 3 (L.Rs.) (in C.A. No. 933 of 2013)). Razzaq A. Mirza, Additional A.G. Punjab for Appellants
YAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHErs
VS
MST. SAMEENA TAYAB AND OTHERS
Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
Section: 30
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---S. 30---Allottees given proprietary rights in land---Land fraudulently included in Schedule of ‘Islamabad Oustees Scheme’---In pursuance of ‘Grow More Scheme’, the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest were allotted the property in dispute and subsequently were declared entitled for the proprietary rights---Record revealed that a proper note/entry regarding status-quo order was not made by the Patwari concerned in the revenue record with the collusion of the local influential people and by way of his collusive omissions and commissions the land in question was shown to be land available for inclusion in the Schedule of properties meant for Islamabad Oustees and, accordingly, the said land was allotted to respondents and thereafter sold to an alleged vendee on the same day and in the same sitting---Said alleged vendee admittedly was the real sister of the general attorney of respondents and as an attorney he first got it transferred in the names of respondents and in the same sitting re-transferred the same in the name of his sister/alleged vendee---When such collusion and fraud surfaced, the Patwari Halqa concerned was proceeded against and terminated from his service---Entire record was sufficient to prove the collusion and fraud of respondents and the Patwari Halqa---Subject land was never available for further allotment to Islamabad Oustees--- In the circumstances, the alleged-vendee could not be held to be a bona fide purchaser---Appeals were disposed of. JUDGMENT: MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE:--.--- Through the listed appeals, the appellants, in both the appeals, have questioned the same judgment dated 11.10.2010 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby Writ Petition No.1673/2000, filed by Respondent No.1-Mst. Sameena Tayab, was allowed and order of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 29.09.1999 was set aside. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, both the listed appeals will have their fate through our this single judgment. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the Government of West Pakistan, in the year 1956, introduced a Scheme…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492