Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH RA KHI VS Respondent: SUGHRA BIBI And OTHER
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Zakiuddin Pal Title: ALLAH RA KHI vs SUGHRA BIBI And OTHER Case No.: Writ Petition No. 221-R of 1972 Date of Judgment:1986-04-13 Reported As: 1986 CLC 2095 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER The facts giving rise to this petition are that the land in dispute was allotted to Mst. Mehr Bibi, widow of Hasham Ali, mother of the petitioner, for maintenance purposes on 7th of March, 1960. This allotment was cancelled by respondent No. 2, Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sialkot, on 28th of January, 1970, on the ground that after the death of Mst. Mehr Bibi, the disputed land could not remain with her heirs. The petitioner filed appeal against that order but the same was rejected by the Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order, dated 11th of November, 1971 (vide Annex: 'C'). The petitioner has now challenged the impugned orders passed against her by filing the present petition. 2. It has been contended that the order for cancelling the allotment of land in favour of Mst. Mehr Bibi, was made in the. Absence of. The petitioner and without notice to her. It is contended the petitioner was the legal heir of her mother, therefore, the impugned order could not be passed in her absence. 3. It is admitted that the land in dispute was allotted to Mst. Mehr Bibi for the purpose of maintenance only and the name of the petitioner as her dependent was never included in the relevant document. If the land had been given against her verified claim or had been allotted on quasi-permanent basis then the same could be inherited by the petitioner being her legal heir after the death of her mother. In the present case the land was given for specific purpose, i.e. Maintenance of the deceased, Mehr Bibi only. After the death of the allottee that purpose came to an end. Obviously the land in that case would revert to the authority which had given the same. In the circumstances, no notice was required to be issued to the petitioner because she could not
---
## Page 2
inherit the property in dispute I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition has no substance and the same is dismissed in limine.