1989 PLP 4331 (MLD)
ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4331 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C.J. and Abdul Rahim |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4331 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4331 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C.J. and Abdul Rahim.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4331 (MLD) (ALI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Qadir Solangi Asstt. DC/CLC Nawabshah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑‑All proceedings pending before Federal Land Commission stood abated commencement of Land Reforms Act, 1977‑‑Order passed by Commission in exercise of 5,110 mote revisional jurisdiction, on proceedings pending at the time of promulgation of that Act m pursuance of subsequently issued general Notification, which otherwise was ultra vires of S. 25 of Act was declared illegal. NLR 1989 Revenue 80 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Petitioners. Ghulam Qadir Solangi Asstt. DC/CLC Nawabshah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1988. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order dated passed by respondent 1 in purported exercise of 5,110 mote revisional 3,1980, powers. The facts are that while 5,110 mote proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation‑1972 were pending before respondent 1, Act‑II of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted, section 25 of which provides as follows: "25: ‑Abatement of pending proceedings all proceeding pending before the Federal Land Commission shall, on commencement of this Act, stand abated unless the Federal Government directs otherwise in a case or class of cases:' It seems that the Federal Government by a general Notification dated 23rd September, 1978, purported to keep the above proceedings alive. We have held in a number of petitions that the above general Notification is ultra vires of Section 25 of the Act. In this regard, reference may be made to an unreported judgment in the case of Sher Muhammad and Others v. Member Federal Land Commission and others (C.P. No. D 2069/1979) now reported in NLR 1989 Revenue 80) delivered on 1‑11‑1988, wherein we have held as follows: "4.‑‑We are inclined to hold that under above quoted Section 25 the Federal Government had the power to direct that a case or class of cases would not stand abated but it could not have issued the impugned Notification directing that all the cases which were pending before the Federal Land Commission‑before the enactment of the Act shall not stand abated. The impugned Notification in fact purports to nullify the effect of Section 25 of the Act as a whole and, therefore, it is ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Government. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice issued in pursuance of the above impugned Notification also cannot be sustained." There seems to be no reason to take different view than the view taken in the above case. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect as the same was passed in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 23rd September, 1978 which we have held ultra vires of Section 25 of the Act. However, there will be no orders as to costs. H.B.T./A‑551/K