Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 5113 = 1966 SLD 5113 = 1966 PLD 178
Dacca High Court
Writ Petition No. 356 of 1964, decided on. 10th May 1965.
Presented By: A. S. Chowdhury and A. M. Sayem, JJ
M.H. Khondkar, F.K.M. Munim and M.R. Khan for Petitioner. Maksumul Hakim Advocate-General with K. M. Subhan for
Respondents.

A. F. M. ABUL FATEH-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER --Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98

  Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Writ-Failurelp make parties to proceedings persons affected by result thereof Good ground for refusing writ-Prayer, at argument stage, for permission to odd names of such persons-Not allowed.   Mosudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain P L D 1963 S C 203 ref.   Md. Yaqub v. Garden Reach Municipality A I R 1957 Cal. 460; 62' C W N 384 and Purushottam v. State of U. P. A I R 1955 All. 106 ref.   Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Contract-Mere breach or failure to honour obligation arising out of contractCannot be enforced by writ.   Dates of hearing : 6th, 7th and 10th May 1965.  JUDGMENT   SAYEM, J.-In this Rule the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order of the Provincial Government cancelling an allotment of a plot of land which stood in the name of the petitioner. Prayer has also been made for a direction on the Province to refrain from giving effect to the said order of cancellation and, to permit the petitioner to execute a deed of lease in respect of the allotted land, namely, Plot No. 539 of Dhanmandi Residential Area.   It is not in dispute that the plot in question had earlier been allotted to Dr. Mrs. H. Sayeed, who paid the entire amount of premium and then suddenly died without executing the deed of lease, whereupon the allotment in her favour was cancelled. It is not also in dispute that upon such cancellation of the allot ment standing in the name of the late Dr. Mrs. H. Sayeed that the said plot was allotted to the petitioner who, in his turn, paid the premium and obtained sometime for execution of the lease. Before the expiry of that period, and before the deed of lease could be executed by the petitioner, Government cancelled the allotment in his favour. The petitioner thereupon obtained this Rule.   It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had a right in the allotment letter which could not be validly cancelled in the manner it was done, without granting the petitioner a hearing. In this connection reference has been made to illustration "C" of section 10 of the Specific Relief Act and section 55 (3) of the Transfer of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register