Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLD 844 = 1994 CLC 2294
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 369-R of 1982, decided on 31st October, 1992.
Presented By: Before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J
Mahmood-ul-Haq Thanvi for Petitioner. Hamid Ali Mirza for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD HANIF---Petitioner

VERSUS

OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, CRO---Respondent

Law: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Section: 2 , 199

Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)--- .---S. 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Allotment of evacuee property---Petitioner's claim had already been registered and verification of area was pending whets evacuee laws were repealed, therefore, petitioner's claim should have been decided on merits---Authority's order dismissing petitioner's claim was set aside with direction that petitioner's claim be decided in accordance with law. Mahmood-ul-Haq Thanvi for Petitioner. Hamid Ali Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31 st October, 1992. JUDGMENT Facts of the case out of which this Constitutional petition has arisen are that Abdul Aziz s/o Ara Muhammad, father of the petitioner, submitted his claim for agricultural land abandoned in his native village in East Punjab, India after migration to Pakistan. The claim form was registered at S.No.6258/3289 in Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh. After the death of his father, as the area allotted to him had not been verified by the respondent, on his claim form in accordance with the provisions of section 29 of the Scheme, the petitioner started pursuing the matter by filing of an application in the nature of reminder to finalise the allotment of land against the abovementioned claim and during this interregnum the petitioner joined Pakistan Army. Thereafter it transpired that vide order dated 3-1-1982, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent on the ground that the said application has been filed after the repeal of the evacuee laws therefore the petitioner should seek his remedy before the Civil Court. It is this order which has been challenged…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register