Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1987 SCMR 23

IBRAHIM vs UMAR DIN And Other

Citation1987 SCMR 23
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 213 of 1976 Writ Petition No. 764/R of 1974
Date1981-08-19
Judge(s)M. S. H. Qureshi, Karam Elahi Chauhan
Resultpetition dismissed

ORDER

M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The dispute relates to the calculation of units of the petitioner's entitlement in respect of land left behind in District Gurgaun, India. The calculation had been made at the rate of 28 units per Acre for Banjar Jadeed, 14 units per Acre for Banjar Qadeem and 7 units per Acre for Ghair Mumkin. He had been allotted land on this basis in village Jambar Khurd, Tehsil Chunian, then District Lahore, in 1956. However, in 1969 he disputed the calculations claiming that he would be entitled to 50 units per Acre for Banjar Jadeed, 25 units per Acre for Banjar Qadeem and 121 units per Acre for Ghair Mumkin. The matter was finally disposed of in the Department by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, on 25-3-1974 when the petitioner's revision was dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal were that the total entitlement of the petitioner had already been satisfied and no pending unit remained anywhere and that the calculations made were in accordance with para. 16, Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner agitated the matter in the writ jurisdiction before the Lahore High Court but his petition was dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that the allotment in his favour having been made in 1956 on the basis of the departmental calculation and no objection having been taken at that time. The petitioner could not raise the dispute on 29-3-1969 when he filed an appeal against allotment made in favour of respondent Umar Din.

2. We are of the view that the High Court was fully justified in disallowing the petitioner to agitate in 1969 the calculation of the units of his entitlement made and satisfied as early as 1956. We therefore, refuse his petition for leave to appeal.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch