Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1989 SCMR 1741

ABDUL HAMID and othersPctitioriers vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through

Petitioner: ABDUL HAMID and othersPctitioriers VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Collector, Faisalabad and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan Decision Date: 1988-07-16

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal Title:ABDUL HAMID and othersPctitioriers vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through

Collector, Faisalabad and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,690 of 1981 Date of Judgment:1988-07-16 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1741 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners and is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 2 May 1981. ' Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land under Grow More Food Scheme in 1956 but the allotment in their favour was cancelled for the reason that the said land not being waste land could not be allotted under the Scheme. Consequently it was resumed in 1961. The petitioner first filed writ petition challenging the resumption order but failed. Thereafter they filed a civil suit against the resumption order but the plaint was returned on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912. The appeal of the petitioners failed. Thereafter they filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court against the orders of the civil Courts which was likewise dismissed for the main reason that since the civil suit did not lie under section 36 of the aforesaid Act, it was a clear bar of jurisdiction on the civil side. We have heard learned counsel at some length. The jurisdiction of the civil Courts in this case is obviously barred under section 36 of the Act. Consequently it is not a fit case for interference. The result is that this petition is dismissed.

---

## Page 2

revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Related Legal Research & Directories