1991 PLP 1677 (SCMR)
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Petitioners Versus IIABIB AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1677 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Petitioners Versus IIABIB AHMAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Ordinance (XVI of 1914) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1677 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Ordinance (XVI of 1914) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1677 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1677 (SCMR) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Petitioners Versus IIABIB AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Z. Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 1990.
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Z. Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-2-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Writ Petition No.59-R of 1982).
S. 2(d)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199
Leave to appeal was granted to examine, whether judgment of High Court did not suffer from inter se, conflict of findings and conclusions as also inadequate discussion and treatment of factual aspects of controversy; whether property had not the character of evacuee trust property; whether respondent was at all within his right to plead before High Court that property in dispute was not evacuee trust property because he himself had earlier claimed that it was evacuee trust property and whether in circumstances of case, High Court should have exercised Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of respondent. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.
Leave to appeal has beer sought by the petitioners; against the acceptance by the High Court of a Constitutional Petition which had arisen out of an urban settlement case relating to evacuee property. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the proceedings and have urged and reiterated the points raised in this petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the caveator also we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal on the questions raised in this petition as well as to examine further: whether, the impugned judgment does not suffer from inter se conflict of findings and conclusions as also inadequate discussion and treatment of the factual aspects of the controversy; and whether, the property had not the character of evacuee trust property. In this context it would also require examination: whether, the respondent was at all within his right to plead before the High Court that the property was not evacuee trust property because he himself had earlier claimed that it was evacuee trust property. Therefore, these and other similar questions would also further lead to another major question: as to whether, in the circumstances of this case the High Court should have exercised its writ jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Interim order passed on 14-3-1990 shall continue in operation. H.B.T./F-183/S Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has beer sought by the petitioners; against the acceptance by the High Court of a Constitutional Petition which had arisen out of an urban settlement case relating to evacuee property. The question raised before the High Court by the respondent No.1 stood decided on merits and facts by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board and also by a Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the concurrent findings were set aside by the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the proceedings and have urged and reiterated the points raised in this petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the caveator also we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal on the questions raised in this petition as well as to examine further: whether, the impugned judgment does not suffer from inter se conflict of findings and conclusions as also inadequate discussion and treatment of the factual aspects of the controversy; and whether, the property had not the character of evacuee trust property. In this context it would also require examination: whether, the respondent was at all within his right to plead before the High Court that the property was not evacuee trust property because he himself had earlier claimed that it was evacuee trust property. Therefore, these and other similar questions would also further lead to another major question: as to whether, in the circumstances of this case the High Court should have exercised its writ jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Interim order passed on 14‑3-1990 shall continue in operation. H.B.T./F‑183/S Leave granted.