| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1129 2002 SLD 1129 2002 SCMR 226 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.225 of 2001, decision dated: 7-06-2001. (On appeal from the judgment dated 20-10-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in W. Ps. Nos. 7-R/1987 and 31-R/1991)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents
Civil Petition No.225 of 2001, decision dated: 7-06-2001. (On appeal from the judgment dated 20-10-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in W. Ps. Nos. 7-R/1987 and 31-R/1991)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD NASIM ANWAR and others
VS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VEHARI and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--Sched. para. 24---Cancellation of allotment---Notice, requirement of--Notice of demand is necessary to be given in view of para. 24 of Sched. to Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, before the order with regard to transfer of property is cancelled. Amina v. Abdul Qadir and others 1984 SCMR 993 ref. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--- ----Sched., para.24---Constitution of Pakistan :1973), Art. 185(3)--Cancellation of allotment---Principle of estoppel ---Applicability---Deposit of sale price after 27 years---Petitioners had deposited sale price in treasury when they filed Constitutional petition in High Court after the Settlement Authorities had cancelled the allotment for not depositing the dues---Order of authorities was upheld by High Court---Contention of the petitioners was that no notice of demand was issued to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners hence the cancellation of allotment was against the law--Validity---Deposit of dues at the time of filing of Constitutional petition would not negate the admitted default with regard to non-payment of sale price by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners---Petitioners were estopped from pleading that they should have been allowed to pay sale price of property after 27 years by extending the period---Settlement Authorities were justified in rejecting the request of the petitioners as they could not be allowed to take premium of their own indolence---Where the finding of Settlement Authorities as affirmed by High Court was according to law or was not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence on record, Supreme Court refused to take exception to the finding of fact in respect of service of demand notice---Order passed by Settlement Authorities and affirmed by High Court being legal, proper, valid and based on cogent reasons, warranted no interference by Supreme Court---Leave to appel was refused. Muhammad Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue and others 1981 SCMR 852; Zarina Rauf Butt and others v. Malik Aziz Ahmad and others PLD 1982 SC 272; Muhamtnad…
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