Pakistan Case Law
1987 SCMR 1394

AKBAR ALI And Others vs Mst. RASHIDA BIBI And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1987 SCMR 1394
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 164 of 1987 Writ Petition No.43/R of 1986
Date1987-04-29
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the allocation of land units. The petitioners challenged the High Court's interpretation of an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 20-12-1969. The petitioners contended that the High Court's decision to deprive them of land equivalent to 130 units was based on an untenable, erroneous, and unjustified interpretation of the said Commissioner's order, which had previously remained unchallenged by the respondents through various legal stages. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioners and reviewing the available record, the Supreme Court found, prima facie, that there was merit in the petitioners' submission regarding the erroneous nature of the High Court's interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court ordered that the status quo regarding the possession of the land equivalent to 130 units held by the petitioners be maintained. The Court further directed that security in the sum of Rs. 2,500 be furnished and granted the parties liberty to file additional documents.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court grant a status quo order pending the disposal of an appeal regarding land possession?
  • Does a prima facie case regarding an erroneous interpretation of a lower authority's order justify the grant of leave to appeal?
land allocationsettlement commissionerstatus quoleave to appealinterpretation of orderspossession of land

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--It is submitted that the learned Judge in the High Court while depriving the petitioners of land equivalent to 130 units has placed an interpretation on the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 20-12-1969 (which was not interfered with at any stage nor even challenged by the respondents although unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners themselves before the Settlement Commissioner, High Court and this Court), which was untenable, erroneous and unjustified.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the available record, there appears, prima facie, to be force in the above submission.

3. Security to be furnished in the sum of Rs.2,500.

4. Appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.

5. Status quo as to possession of the petitioners, to the extent of the land equivalent to 130 units to be maintained pending the disposal of the appeal.

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