1992 PLP 2384 (SCMR)
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF SHAFQAT and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 2384 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF SHAFQAT and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 2384 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 2384 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 2384 (SCMR) (CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF SHAFQAT and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by SA. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 24th June, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 26‑3‑1991, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.50‑R of 1991). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑‑Appeal before Supreme Court‑‑‑Urban Settlement matter‑‑ Counsel for both the parties informed the Supreme Court that after the High Court passed the order which was impugned in the present appeal before the Supreme Court, another order by the Authorities concerned had been passed, which was under challenge through an independent Constitutional petition, which was yet to be heard and disposed of and expressed the apprehension that any detailed statement and discussion of facts by Supreme Court might prejudice the decision of the case pending in the High Court‑‑‑Supreme Court, in the circumstances, refrained from making any serious comments on the facts of the case and after affirming the observation in leave grant order left the matter at that. (b) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.2‑‑‑Every Authority/Court/Tribunal was authorised to guard its proceedings against fraud/misrepresentation etc: ‑‑Reference/verification from the Custodian of the original record and a reference to such record thus could not be held to be without lawful authority. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 ref. Nemo for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ. ‑‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court has arisen out of an urban settlement matter. As informed by the learned counsel for both the sides, after the High Court passed the order, dated 26‑3‑1991, which has been impugned in this appeal, another order by the Authorities concerned having been passed, the same is under challenge through an independent writ petition which it is stated has yet to be heard and disposed of. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent rightly expressed the apprehension that any detailed statement and discussion of facts by this Court might prejudice the decision of the case pending in the High Court. Accordingly, we would refrain from making any serious comment on the facts of the case‑ For the same reason both the learned counsel agree now after consultation, arguments and discussion that an observation in the leave grant order may be affirmed by this Court, and the matter may be left at that. The said observation ix the leave grant order reads as follows: "Every Authority/Court/Tribunal is authorized to guard its proceedings against fraud/misrepresentation etc' as held in the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 " In the light of the afore‑produced observation it was 'then noted for examination whether a reference/verification from the Custodian of the, original record and a reference to such record can be held to be without lawful authority. Obviously the answer is in the negative. With the afore recorded observations, this appeal, as agreed, now stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. It is further clarified that nothing stated herein shall prejudice the case of either party on merits in so far as the other matter now pending in the High Court is concerned. M.BA./C‑108/S Order accordingly.