Pakistan Case Law
1996 SCMR 1960

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER M. Zainul Abidin, Raja Dilshad A. Khan, S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Hamid Ali Mirza, Ehsanullah Khan , Ch. Qadir Bux, Rana M.A. Qadri, Nemo , Malik Saeed Hasan, Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Sh. Salahuddin,

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1996 SCMR 1960
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.775/L, 869-L, 870-L, 871/L, 946-L, 950-L, 952-L, 953-L, 954-L, 955-L, 1006-L and 1082-L of 1994
Date1995-01-25
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo
Authored byManzoor Hussain Sial
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns the validity of allotments of evacuee lands made to the petitioners in the year 1992. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether such allotments were legally permissible following the repeal of the Evacuee Laws. The Court noted that with the enforcement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975), all evacuee laws stood repealed effective from 1st July 1974. Under Section 3 of the Act, all available evacuee properties, both urban and rural, were transferred to the Provincial Government for disposal according to specific schemes prepared by the relevant authorities. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the legality of the 1992 allotments in light of this statutory transfer of property and the subsequent repeal of the governing evacuee legislation. The holding establishes that the legal framework for disposing of evacuee property shifted entirely to the Provincial Government post-1974, necessitating a review of whether subsequent allotments adhered to these statutory requirements.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether allotments of evacuee lands made in 1992 are valid in law following the repeal of Evacuee Laws?
  • Did evacuee properties stand transferred to the Provincial Government after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws on 1st July 1974?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975
evacuee propertyallotment of landrepeal of lawsprovincial governmentdisposal of propertyleave to appeal

ORDER

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--- As per details given in the Chart . filed by Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. l the lands in dispute were allotted to the petitioners in the year 1992. With the enforcement of Act XIV of 1975 the Evacuee Laws stood repealed with effect from 1-7-1974. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, relevant to the extent, is re produced hereunder: --

"3. Transfer of property .--(1) All properties, both urban and rural, including agricultural land, other than such properties attached to charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions, whether occupied or unoccupied, which may be available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government on payment of such price as may be fixed by the Federal Government in consultation with the Provincial Government for disposal--

(a) in the case of urban properties by the Provincial Government under a scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf; and

(b) in the case of rural properties, by the Board of Revenue of the Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf."

2. It appears that after 1st July, 1974, all available evacuee properties, both urban and rural, stood transferred to the Provincial Government for disposal in accordance with the scheme prepared by the authorities concerned.

3. Leave to appeal is granted in these cases, inter alia, to consider whether the allotments of evacuee lands made to the petitioners in the year 1992 are valid in law.

A.A./M-3013/S Leave granted

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