1991 PLP 1212 (SCMR)
BARKAT — Petitioner Versus SHAHAB DIN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1212 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah |
| Parties | BARKAT — Petitioner Versus SHAHAB DIN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Act (II of 1977) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1212 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Act (II of 1977) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1212 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1212 (SCMR) (BARKAT — Petitioner Versus SHAHAB DIN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- MA. War, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate-on -Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1989.
- Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- MA. War, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-6-1986 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.25 of 1979).
S.27
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199--Availability of alternate adequate remedy
Failure to avail
Maintainability of Constitution petition
Petitioner without availing the remedy provided under S.27, Land Reforms Act, 1977, invoked Constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional remedy was not warranted when there was another adequate remedy available to petitioner and he had failed to avail the same
Relief which was sought before the High Court could have been granted by the higher forum in the hierarchy of Land Commission Authorities
Remand order passed by Authority could and should have been adequately brought under scrutiny before higher forum provided by law
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. MA. War, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is being sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner s Writ Petition which had arisen out of grant of land surrendered under the Land Reforms. The petitioner having succeeded before the lower forum of the Land Commission Authorities appeal of the respondents' side was dismissed but their revision having been allowed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner the case was remanded for fresh decision. The petitioner instead of further challenging the remand order in the hierarchy of the Land Reforms set up directly, filed a writ petition in the High Court and the same having been dismissed mainly on the ground of availability of another adequate remedy, has sought leave to appeal. In this behalf it was observed as follows in the impugned. judgment:‑ "It has also been noticed that under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the petitioner could move the Federal Government (Federal Land Commission) to call for a case decided by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and to pass such order as it might deem necessary. The remedy provided under Section 27 had not been availed by the petitioner before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This course of action is not warranted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973." When questioned in this behalf learned counsel frankly conceded that another remedy was available to the petitioner; but tried to explain that it being a revisional remedy; the writ petition should not have been dismissed on this ground. He also contended that the orders impugned before the High Court being illegal, the same could be straightaway challenged in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court instead of the same being brought before the higher forum in the heirarchy of the Land Commission Authorities. On the first point we do not agree with the learned counsel that the relief which was sought before the High Court could not be granted by way of the other remedy available to him. Nor it it possible to hold that in the circumstances of this case it would have been futile exercise to seek that remedy. On the other hand the remand order could and should have been adequately brought under scrutiny before the higher forum provided by law. Accordingly, with the said observations this petition is dismissed. A.A./B‑146/S Petition dismissed.