Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1985 2011 SLD 1985 2011 SCMR 1978
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.617-L of 2011, decision dated: 4-08-2011 (Against the judgment dated 24-1-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P.No.146-R of 2003)
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Dr. NIAZ MUHAMMAD MANN through Legal heirs

VS

SECRETARY (S&R WING)/NOTIFIED OFFICER/ ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL PROPERTY)/ SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB (URBAN) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, Lahore High Court and others

Law:

Section:

Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme-------Part-II, Para. 52---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Decree of civil court---Entitlement of decree holder---New fact---Scope---Claim of predecessor-in-interest of respondents was based on a and decree dated 10-4-1946, in a pre-emption suit pursuant to which he had deposited decretal amount on 21-5-1946---Application filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents was allowed by Notified Officer and order was passed to implement the decree---Plea raised by petitioners was that predecessor-in-interest of respondents did not deposit decretal amount and only Zar-e-Panjam was deposited---Validity---Petitioners urged certain facts first time in the constitutional jurisdiction and assailed and decree on which respondents' claim was based on altogether new ground; it was late in the day for petitioners to take up a new ground in constitutional jurisdiction for the first time---Issue raised was a question of fact which had to have been raised before Notified Officer---Notified Officer having considered the submissions made and examined the record had come to the conclusion that decretal amount was duly deposited on 21-5-1946 to which no exception could be taken---Even otherwise if Zar-e-Panjam was added to the amount which according to petitioners was the only amount deposited by predecessor-in-interest of respondents then total amount deposited would be around the decretal amount---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Notified Officer and passed by High Court in favour of respondents---Leave to appeal was refused. Dr. Niaz Muhammad Mann and others v. Sh. Muhammad Ahmad and another 1988 SCMR 1016 and Mst. Kabir-un-Nisa and another v. Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and 3 others 1975 SCMR 493 ref. S.M. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th August, 2011. JUDGMENT TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Facts giving rise to the instant petition briefly stated are that both the parties are refugee right holders from District Hoshiarpur. Both of them received the verified claim for the property left there. The claim of the predecessor-in-interest of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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