Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN VS Respondent: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), VEHARI
1988 S C M R 1631
1988 S C M R 1631
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) VEHARI and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.280 of 1988, decided on 7th May, 1988.
(From the judgment and order dated 26‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in Writ Petition No.665-R of 1979).
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑
‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Land settlement‑‑ Preferential right of claimant‑‑Evacuee land allotted to respondents, their claim was verified but said land was later confirmed in favour of another person who in turn sold the same to petitioner's father‑‑Additional Settlement Commissioner subsequently, restored allotment in favour of respondents‑‑‑Petitioner's writ petition challenging such order failed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Respondents being claimants and original allottees and their claim, having been verified prior to allotment in favour of another person, held, were better entitled to the allotment of land in dispute in preference to petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court arid Rana M.A. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 26‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court whereby the constitutional petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to two fields falling in square No.26 (now square No.27) of Chak No.166/E.B. of Tehsil Vehari. These fields were evacuee property and were soon after Independence allotted to respondents Nos.2 and 3. Their claim was verified on 28‑2‑1951. Nevertheless, the said fields were confirmed in favour of one Waif Muhammad on 31‑12‑1951. Wali Muhammad later sold them to Ata Muhammad, father of the petitioner.
3. After some protracted litigation to which it is un‑necessary to refer the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Vehari, presumably acting as notified officer, set aside the allotment of Wali Muhammad and restored that of respondents Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we 'do not think that this is a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. Admittedly, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were the origins allottees of the land. It is also not disputed that they were claimants. There is a finding by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that 'their claims were verified before the fields in dispute were allotted to Wali Muhammad. In the circumstances, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were better entitled to the allotment of the fields in dispute in, preference to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.I. /M‑509/S Petition dismissed.