| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1149 2004 SLD 1149 2004 SCMR 1232 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.991/K of 2002, decided en 12-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4 9 2002 of the High Court of Sindh Circuit at Hyderabad passed in C.P. No.D 192 of 2000)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Imran Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and. Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate on-Record. for
Respondents Nos.1 4
Civil Petition No.991/K of 2002, decided en 12-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4 9 2002 of the High Court of Sindh Circuit at Hyderabad passed in C.P. No.D 192 of 2000)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Imran Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and. Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate on-Record. for
Respondents Nos.1 4
GHULAM ALI and others
VS
MUHAMMD NASIR KHAN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)----S. 2 Matter, in fact was a past and closed transaction which could not have been reopened by a person who had no concern whatsoever with the land in question except that he was son of a person who had tried his luck upto the Supreme Court but in vain Land in question was neither available for allotment nor the same could have been allotted after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 as it was not subject to any proceedings anywhere and, therefore, it was not "available" for the purpose of re allotment. Shamrooz Khan v. Muhabbat Khan 1989 SCMR 819 and Quetta Hindu Panchayat v. Dilshad Akhtar 1993 SCMR 21 distinguished. (b) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)--- S. 2 Record showed that the price of land in question had been paid pursuant to Martial Law Regulation No. 89 of 1961 Non execution of conveyance deed by the concerned authorities would have no substantial bearing on the title .of the transferees as all the mandatory requirements had been adhered to in letter and spirit and they could not be held responsible for any lapse which otherwise was immaterial on the part of concerned authorities Mutation qua the land pertaining to the transferees had been cancelled by a letter by the Additional Deputy Commissioner without any notice and affording proper opportunity Of hearing to the transferees which was a classic example of highhandedness, misuse and abuse of the official authority Title of the "original allottee" was never challenged and resultantly the transferees, who had stepped in the shoes of original allottee, could not have been deprived of land which now had been Mutated again in their favour Supreme Court directed that disciplinary action must be initiated against the concerned functionaries and finalize expeditiously and progress whereof to be intimated to the office of the Supreme Court. Shamrooz Khan v. Muhabbat Khan 1989 SCMR 819 and Quetta Hindu Panchayat v. Dilshad Akhtar 1993 SCMR 21 distinguished. JUDGMENT JAVED IQBAL, J. ---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 4 9 2002…
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