| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 499 1982 SLD 499 1982 SCMR 853 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 925 of 1979, decision dated: 8-12-1979. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-6-1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W. P. No. 226/R of 1973)
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
A. R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents 14 and 6. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate-on
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 925 of 1979, decision dated: 8-12-1979. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-6-1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W. P. No. 226/R of 1973)
DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
A. R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents 14 and 6. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate-on
SAIFULLAH KHAN AND another
VS
SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction--Petitioner not corning to High Court with clean hand-Held, petition was liable to be dismissed on such short ground. C. Ps. S. L. A. Nos. 80-R to 83-R of 1979 ref. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The facts in this case briefly stated are that an area measuring about 24 marlas out of Khasra No. 51/24 situate at Railway Road, Mailsi, is the bone of contention between the parties. The total area of this Khasra No. is about 12 kanals 18 marlas and has been transferred to several persons including respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (herein referred to as contesting respondents). The case of petitioner No. 1 was that he has been in possession of the plot in dispute since 1950-51 and has raised a permanent construction thereon. He applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 12-10-1960 transferred the plot in his favour and subsequently, on 3-4-1967, he was even issued a P. T. D. Later on petitioner No. 1, vide registered sale deed 20-7-1970 sold this plot to his wife and a mutation in this regard was duly sanctioned on 27-9-1970. The case of the respondents on the contrary is that the disputed plot was in their possession and the construction existing thereon belongs to them. The property was allotted to them by an order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 23-8-1950 and the construction raised by them on it, in pursuance of a plan duly approved by the Town Committee, Mailse, vide a Resolution No. VII, dated 3-9-1950 which has been assigned No. B/1-79-A and is assessed to property tax. They have duly been paying the taxes for which they hold receipts. On the commencement of the settlement operation they applied for the transfer of the disputed plot under Settlement Scheme No. VI and it was transferred to them by the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4-12-1960. The petitioner being a relation of the contesting respondents was accommodated temporarily as a licensee in the year 1965 but having entered into possession he misused the courtesy by obtaining transfer of the property in his favour by fraudulent means. In this…
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