Pakistan Case Law
1971 SCMR 110

Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs DHARMUMAL AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1971 SCMR 110
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-166 of 1968
Date1971-08-21
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Wahiduddin Ahmad
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns an application for the appointment of a Receiver over disputed land during the pendency of an appeal. The respondents sought this relief, alleging that the appellants were disposing of parcels of the land and had obtained a status quo order based on false pleas. The appellants had been in possession of the disputed land as allottees since 1949. The Court examined the history of the dispute, noting that the Custodian of Evacuee Property had previously rejected a revision petition regarding the land's status based on an erroneous view regarding the applicability of evacuee laws to the former Khairpur State. The Supreme Court held that, given the appellants' long-standing possession since 1949, it would not be just or proper to appoint a Receiver to disturb that possession. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for a Receiver but issued an injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or encumbering the disputed land until the final disposal of the appeal, while also directing them to expedite the appeal proceedings.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is it appropriate to appoint a Receiver to disturb the possession of long-standing allottees of land during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can the court restrain parties from alienating or encumbering disputed property during the pendency of an appeal?
ReceiverEvacuee PropertyStatus QuoPossessionAlienationKhairpur StateAllotment

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The respondents in Civil Appeal arising from P. S. L. A. No. K-166 of 1968 have applied for appointment of a Receiver of the land, in dispute, mater alia on the ground that the appellants are during the pendency of the appeal disposing of parcels of land. It is also urged that the order for maintaining status quo during the pendency of the appeal was obtained on incorrect and false pleas.

2. The appellants have been admittedly in possession of the disputed land as allottees since 1949.

3. The ground on which the application to revise the order of the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property granting to the respondents a declaration many years after the allotment that the land was non-evacuee was rejected by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on an erroneous view that evacuee laws did not apply to the former Khairpur State. In the circumstances, it is not just and proper to disturb the possession of the appellants by appointment of a Receiver. They are, however, restrained from alienating or in any manner encumbering the land, in dispute, during the pendency of the appeal. They will further take all necessary steps to complete the appeal at an early date.

4. The petition is, in the terms aforesaid, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 17 cases

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