1989 PLP 509 (MLD)
THAKUR INDER SINGH and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE SENIOR MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 509 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Raheem kazi, J |
| Parties | THAKUR INDER SINGH and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE SENIOR MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 509 (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 509 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Raheem kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 509 (MLD) (THAKUR INDER SINGH and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE SENIOR MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Vassu for Petitioners.
- Rashid Akhtar Qureshi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑‑Abatement of pending proceedings‑‑Suo motu proceedings under Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 were pending before Authority, but Authority even after enactment of Act (1I of 1977) according to which pending proceedings stood abated, kept said proceedings alive by Notification issued after enactment of Act‑ Order of Authority passed in pursuance of Notification which was ‑ultra vires after enactment of Act, held, was illegal.
Judgment & Decree
M.M. Vassu for Petitioners. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1988. AJMAL MIAN, CJ. ‑‑The above petitions are directed against the orders dated 13‑1‑1980 (C.P. Nos. D‑907 & 1028 of 1980) and dated 27‑2‑1980 (C.P. No. 1030/ 1980), passed by respondent No.
1. We intend to dispose of the above three petitions by this common judgment as they involve the common point of law and common facts. The brief facts in these petitions are that while suo motu proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 were pending before respondent No. 1, Act 11 of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted, section 25 of which provides as follows: "25.‑‑Abatement of pending proceedings‑‑All, proceedings 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 of 1979) 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 ease car class of cases would not stand abated but it could not have issued the impugned Notification directing that all the vases which were pending before the Federal Land Commission on or before the enactment of the Act shall not be 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 orders as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect as the same were 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 order as to costs. H.B.T./T‑50/K Petition allowed.