Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM RASUL VS Respondent: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
1991 S C M R1924
1991 S C M R1924
Present: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ
GHULAM RASUL‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DASKA and another‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.134 of 1986, decided on 18th September, 1989.
(From the judgment dated 14‑1‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.720‑R of 1976).
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑---
‑‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Allotment of land cancellation of‑‑‑Father of petitioner was earlier allotted land, but subsequent to such allotment, petitioner also obtained another allotment in a different village‑‑ Petitioner's allotment was cancelled by Authority on mukhbari application on ground that petitioner was not entitled to separate allotment after his father had already obtained same‑‑‑Petitioner challenged such cancellation contending that he had nothing to do with allotment of his father and that on death of his father he was neither recorded as his heir nor was treated as member of his family‑‑ Father of petitioner while obtaining allotment had mentioned him as a member of his family‑‑‑Petitioner also claimed compensation for loss suffered on account of enemy action during war in respect of his father's allotment ‑‑‑Petitioner obtained subsidy for installation of a tube‑well on land given to his father‑‑ Petitioner had connection with allotment of his father‑‑‑Petition being without any merit was dismissed.
M. Hanif Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th September, 1989.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑‑Fakar Din, father of the petitioner, was a refugee from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was allotted land in village Nawan Pind of Tehsil Shakargarh by way of maintenance. Among the members of his family, he included the petitioner as well. Subsequently, the petitioner also obtained another allotment in village Jhulki of Tehsil Daska by way of maintenance as refugee from the said State On a Mukhbari application the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment of the petitioner on the ground that he was not entitled to a separate allotment after his father had already obtained land by way of maintenance. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the legality of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. His petition was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had nothing to do with the allotment obtained by his father and that on his father's death he was neither recorded as his heir nor treated as member of his family.
3. It is to be noticed that the father of the petitioner while obtaining the allotment had mentioned him as a member of his family. In 1971, the petitioner claimed compensation for the loss suffered on account of enemy action in respect of his father's allotment. Again, he obtained subsidy for installation of a tube‑well on the land given to his father. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that he had no connection whatsoever with the allotment of his father. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./G‑246/S Petition dismissed.