Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1335 1994 SLD 1335 1994 CLC 1079
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1124-R of 1976, heard on 16th January, 1994
SHAIKH ABDUL MANNAN, J
A.R. Shaukat for Petitioner. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for
Respondents.

MEHRAN

VS

SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), MULTAN, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), MULTAN and 21 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)--- ----5.2(2)---Order passed by Additional Commissioner in appeal on 17-7-1976 i.e., after repeal of Evacuee Laws---Validity--- Original allotment of 1958 was cancelled on the report of the Patwari in 1965 and subsequent allottees sold such land and it changed hands thrice---Original allotment was, however, restored by Additional Commissioner on 17-7-1976 and such order had remedied injustice done to respondents---Sale or exchange of land after cancellation (which had no legal basis) stood nullity in the eye of law by the order of 17-7-1976---Petitioners claiming to be purchasers of such land from unauthorized persons had no case whatsoever, either on legal basis or on merits to retain land in question, for order in question of Additional Commissioner was perfectly in accordance with law and no exception could be taken to it on any ground whatsoever, particularly when petitioner (in Constitutional petition) was one of the respondents before Additional Commissioner who passed the order in question. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXIII, R. 3---Constitutional petition---Application for compromise submitted by counsel for respondents--­Most of the respondents whose predecessors-in-interest had been litigating for more than twenty years not signing such application---Additionally some of the respondents were minors whose interests were to be safeguarded by the Court---No consideration appeared to have been passed for such compromise---Application filed by counsel representing those respondents who had not signed application for compromise, praying therein that Constitutional petition could be accepted; such application could not be accepted and could not be termed as valid and legal compromise for having not been signed by most of respondents some of whom were minors and for non-passing of consideration in favour of such respondents---No ground, having been pointed out for setting aside order in question, petition was dismissed in circumstances.---[Compromise]. Umar Baksh v. Azim Khan 1993 SCMR 374 ref. JUDGMENT This Constitutional…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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