Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3627 2025 SLD 3627 = 2025 MLD 941
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7411 of 2023, decided on 13th May, 2024.
Before Shams Mehmood Mirza, J
Syed Salman Haider Jaffari for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 7411 of 2023). Mian Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 41334 of 2022). Nemo for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 21099 of 2022). Mian Abdul Sattar Ijaz for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3/ETPB. Sheraz Zaka, Assistant Attorney General for the State.

MUHAMMAD TAHIR HAYAT and others---Petitioners

VERSUS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others---Respondents

Law: Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Section: 8 , 10

Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)---

----Ss.8 & 10---Cancellation of allotment in reference proceedings declaring the land to be evacuee property---Non-impleadment of petitioners in the proceedings--Effect---Non-fulfillment of requirements as envisaged in S.10(1) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975---Effect---Absence of procedural compliance and non-determination as to bona fides qua allotment--Effect---Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed being barred by time having knowledge on account of issuance of notices---Contention of the petitioners was that they had been condemned unheard---Validity---RespondentBoard admitted that petitioners were not made party to the reference filed before the Chairman of the Board, therefore, attributing knowledge to the petitioners through issuance of notices was beyond comprehension and this fact alone militated against the findings recorded by respondent in the order that the revision filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation---No determination was made in the orders that the allotment of land in favour of original allottee was lacking in bona fide and the process requirements for holding of the inquiry by the Chairman of the Board as envisaged in S.10(1) of the Act were also not met with--Constitutional petitions were allowed and orders were set aside with the direction that the matter shall be deemed to be pending before the Chairman of the Board, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

 

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register