Pakistan Case LawIFTIKHAR-UD-DIN and anothers Versus The DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment concerning a dispute over land measuring 8 Kanals, 10 Marlas, and 105 Sq.Ft. (Khasra No. 1535) in village Pakki Thatti, Lahore. The High Court had remanded the matter to the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board for a fresh decision, noting an absence of positive evidence regarding whether the Shamilat Deh had been partitioned between Muslim and non-Muslim owners. The petitioners contend that the remand was unnecessary, arguing that both parties agreed no partition of the Shamilat Deh had occurred. Relying on the principle established in Mehr Dad v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1974 SC 193), the petitioners assert that property cannot be declared evacuee property until a joint Khata is partitioned. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the legal necessity of partition before evacuee status can be determined, grants leave to appeal to examine the propriety of the High Court's remand order.
- Can property be declared evacuee property before the partition of a joint Khata?
- Is a remand order appropriate when the parties agree that no partition of Shamilat Deh has taken place?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 1-2-1993.
2.The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 8 Kanals, 10 Marlas and 105 Sq.Ft. Bearing Khasra No, 1535 of Shamilat Deh of village Pakki Thatti, Tehsil and District Lahore. The learned Judge in Chamber observed that there appears to be no dispute that Khasra No, 1535 is a part of Shamilat Deh. The learned High Court further observed that there is no positive evidence whether or not the Shamilat Deh of the village Pakki Thatti had been partitioned between its Muslim and non-Muslim owners. After accepting the petition of the petitioners the case was remanded to the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board for its decision afresh.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, according to both the parties no partition of Shamilat Deh had taken place. According to the Chairman, the whole of the Shamilat Deh was owned by Hindu owners. According to the petitioners, the Shamilat Deh was owned by the Hindus and Muslims, but no partition had taken place. There was no necessity of remanding the case to the Chairman. The learned counsel has referred to Mehr Dad v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1974 SC 193) wherein it has been observed that property cannot be declared evacuee until joint Khata is partitioned.
Leave is granted.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments