| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 946 1993 SLD 946 = 1993 SCMR 1365 |
Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1981, decided on 13th May, 1990.
Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ
WALI MUHAMMAD ---Appellant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another---Respondents
Law:
Section:
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the latter part of paragraph 52 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme was not wide enough to include the decrees of the sort obtained by Wali Muhammad in pre-partition India of which he sought enforcement from the Additional Settlement Commissioner at a stage when it became enforceable.
2. The factual background of the case is that Mst. Sahib Jan inherited under custom as limited owner, land in village Dheem in Tehsil and District Ambala. On 6-2-1931 she sold 107 Bighas 11 Biswas of land for Rs.1;000 in favour of Allah Diya, the father of contesting respondent Muhammad Shari. The appellant and his brother instituted a usual declaratory suit in respect of the sale that it would not affect their reversionary rights in the property on determination of the limited estate of Mst. Sahib Jan. The suit was decreed on 11-9-1934, and an appeal preferred by Allah Diya was dismissed on 15th of March, 1935. Allah Diya died in 1942 and was succeeded by Muhammad Shari, respondent. After partition the parties migrated to Pakistan. Muhammad Shari filed a claim for the land abandoned by his father in India and on its verification received allotments in Tehsil Summundhri, District Faisalabad, and in Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. The appellant riled an application under section 52 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme for enforcement of the decree as against Muhammad Shafi in respect of the allotted land. The' Additional Settlement Commissioner obtained a report from the Tehsildar and by an order dated 17-12-1958 rejected the claim on the ground that the agreement had not been completed. A Revision Petition filed against that order failed. A Constitution Petition (No.246/R of 1964) was filed which was allowed on 8-i1-1968 and the matter was remanded to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for decision afresh. After remand the Settlement and Rehabilitation. Commissioner recognized the claim of the appellant and passed an operative order in the following words:--