1994 PLP 347 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mirza AZIZ ULLAH and 14 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 347 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mirza AZIZ ULLAH and 14 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 347 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 347 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 347 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mirza AZIZ ULLAH and 14 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Saleem Ahmed Malik, Advocate for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment dated 4‑11‑1992 passed in Civil Appeal No. 965 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑O.XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 187 & 188‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment on grounds that respondents had been granted relief larger than they claimed; that they had waived their rights available to them under the law; and that Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in passing order of sale of land in question, in favour of petitioners‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑, as for grant of relief larger than that claimed by respondents, there was no such restriction on Constitutional powers of Supreme Court under Art. 187 of the Constitution which was in fact expressly invoked for dealing with such matter‑‑ Record of case did not support question of waiver, nor it was the contention of petitioners that respondents had waived their right prior to the passing of illegal order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner‑‑‑Waiver subsequent to that order could not be of avail to petitioners‑‑‑Order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner ignoring informer's right could not be upheld at all in view of superior right of informer prevailing over every other right which being a statutory right was available from a retrospective date‑‑‑No ground was made out for review of judgment of Supreme Court: ‑‑[Waiver'. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 187‑‑‑Supreme Court can grant relief larger than the one claimed by party.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 187‑‑‑Supreme Court can grant relief larger than the one claimed by party. Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Saleem Ahmed Malik, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑The petitioners seek review of our judgment dated 4‑11‑1992 on the grounds that the respondents had been granted relief larger than they claimed, that they had waived their rights available to them under the law and the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in passing the order of sale of the land in favour of the petitioners.
2. So far as the first contention is concerned, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any such restriction on the Constitutional powers of this Court under Article 187 which was in fact expressly invoked for dealing with the matter. As regards waiver, there is nothing to support nor it is the contention of the learned counsel that the respondents had waived their right prior to the passing of the impugned illegal order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. A waiver subsequent to that order cannot be of avail to the petitioners. The order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not be upheld at all in view of the superior right of the informer prevailing over every other right. The right of the informer is statutory and is available from a retrospective date.
3. No ground is made out for review and the review petition is found without merit. Hence, dismissed. A.A./M‑1862/S Review dismissed.