Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LAND REFORMS COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers VS Respondent: Mst. AZRA PARVEEN and 2 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Saleem Akhter, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Title:LAND REFORMS COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers vs Mst. AZRA
PARVEEN and 2 others Case No.: Civil Petition No, 385-L of 1993 Date of Judgment:1994-05-08 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 890 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby Constitution Petition filed by the respondents was admitted for regular hearing and interim relief was also granted. 2. Respondent No, 1 filed declaration under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Deputy Land Commissioner by his order dated 8-7-1974 determined her holding to 19645 produce index units, allowed her to retain 14000 produce index units and resumed 5645 produce index units in favour of the Government. By Land Reforms Act, 1977, the ceiling of individual holding was further reduced, but respondent No, 1 did not file declaration by 25-5-1977. In March 1989, petitioner No, 2 initiated proceedings under section 3 of the Land Reforms Act, against which a Constitution Petition was filed by the respondents, which was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh one after the decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner. As the further proceedings were taken, the respondents filed Constitution Petition in which the impugned order was passed. 3. The learned counsel contended that the legal position stands settled by judgment reported in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Additional Advocate- General contended that in view of this judgment there existed no ground for admitting the petition for regular hearing. The petition has been admitted for regular hearing and the petitioners will have the opportunity to argue the case and place before the learned Judges of the High Court the judgment cited by them. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. We refuse to grant leave. However, we expect that the High Court would dispose of the petition filed by the respondents expeditiously.