Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FATEH MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: DILAWAR KHAN and 3 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: FATEH MUHAMMAD vs DILAWAR KHAN and 3 others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,862 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1988-08-17 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1145 Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who has been unsuccessful in the High Court in securing the allotment of Ihata in a Colony District, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4-6-1985. ' Dilawar, respondent, was shown as in occupation of Ihata No,18. Without an inquiry and notice to him his possession was held to be unauthorised and Ihata was allotted to the Petitioner on 13-5- 1966. The Board of Revenue in the hierarchy maintained that allotment order. The order of the Board of Revenue was declared to be without lawful authority on the ground that there was misreading of the record and an element of ignoring the relevant record. ' Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata. His possession appeared to be unauthorised. The petitioner was rightly allotted this Ihata as he had none other to fall back upon though he was the Lambardar of the village. From the record it appears that Dilawar had been longer in possession of Ihata. His possession was at no stage recorded to be unauthorised nor proved to be so. There is no finding by any authority that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata. ' In the circumstances, the High Court's order suffered from no infirmity and the leave to appeal is refused. However, if the petitioner feels that Dilawar has either forteited the right to remain the allottee of that Ihata or is possessed of more Ihata than one, this decision will not preclude the petitioner from agitating the matter before the competent authority.