SCMR 1989

1989 PLP 2012(2) (SCMR)

QAZALBASH WAQF Appellant Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER PUNJAB, LAHORE

Jurisdiction / Court
Shariat Appellate Bench
Decided Date
Shariat Appeals Nos.1, 3, 4, 8, 9,10 of 1981, 21 of 1984 and 1 of 1987, decided on 10th August, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chaiman,
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 2012(2) (SCMR)
Forum / Court Shariat Appellate Bench
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chaiman,
Parties QAZALBASH WAQF Appellant Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER PUNJAB, LAHORE
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2012(2) (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2012(2) (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chaiman,.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2012(2) (SCMR) (QAZALBASH WAQF Appellant Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER PUNJAB, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Arts.203‑A to 203‑J‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑‑Land Reforms Act (II of 1977), Preamble‑‑Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court have the jurisdiction and the power under Chap. 3‑A of Part VII of the Constitution, to examine Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and to decide whether or not provisions thereof are repugnant to Injunctions of Islam. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑Arts.203‑D & 203‑F‑‑Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), 8.60‑A‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115), paras 2(7), 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19. 20 & 25‑‑Land Reforms Act (11 of 1977), Ss.3, 4, 5, 6, 7(5), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 15, 16 & 1.7‑‑Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam‑‑Provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887; Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115) and Land Reforms Act. 1977 are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam to the extent indicated. The following provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115), Land Reforms Act, 1977 and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to the extent indicated against each, are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam:‑‑ (i) Para.2, clause (7) of the Regulation in so far as it includes Islamic Wakf for the purposes of other paras of the Regulation which are being held wholly or partly repugnant to Injunctions of Islam. (ii) The whole of paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 and consequently paragraph 18 of the Land Reforms Regulation. (iii) Paragraphs 15, 16, 19 and 20 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in so far as they ignore the rights and obligations, the terms and conditions of the, grant, licence or lease, as the case may be, in resuming the stud and livestock farms, Shikargahs and Orchards and dealing further with them under paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof. (iv) Paragraph 17 of the Land Reforms Regulation in so far as it relates to Wakf and all other institutions which can validly fall within the definition of Islamic Wakf, and consequential to that extent paragraph 21 also. (v) Paragraph 25(1) of the Land Reforms Regulation in so far as it does not give sanctity to the grounds of ejectment available in a valid contract between the landlord and the tenant, entered into in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam. (vi) Paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation having already been declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of, Islam in Said Kamal Shah's case P L D 1986 S C 360. (vii) The whole of sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(5), 8, 9, 10 of the Land Reform Act, 1977 and consequently the whole of sections 11 to 17 of the Act. (viii) The whole of section 60‑A of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in so far as it makes non‑occupancy tenancy heritable irrespective of the terms of the contract. The question of repugnancy or otherwise of paragraphs 22, 23, 24 of the Land Reforms Regulation was left undetermined, proper and full assistance having not been received and another decision of the Federal Shariat Court having come into field during the interregnum. The decision shall take effect on 23rd March, 1990 whereupon the provisions declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam will cease to have effect. The operation of the self‑executory provisions of the Regulation and the Act, and the provisions ancillary thereto shall not in any manner be affected by this decision till the aforesaid provisions cease to have effect Le, on 23‑3‑1990. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Arts.203‑D & 203‑F‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115], para. 25(3)(a)(b) & (c)‑‑Provisions of para 25(3)(a)(b)(c) of the Regulation are not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.

Judgment & Decree

(viii) The whole of section 60‑A of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in so far as it makes non‑occupancy tenancy heritable irrespective of the terms of the contract. The question of repugnancy or otherwise of paragraphs 22, 23, 24 of the Land Reforms Regulation was left undetermined, proper and full assistance having not been received and another decision of the Federal Shariat Court having come into field during the interregnum. The decision shall take effect on 23rd March, 1990 whereupon the provisions declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam will cease to have effect. The operation of the self‑executory provisions of the Regulation and the Act, and the provisions ancillary thereto shall not in any manner be affected by this decision till the aforesaid provisions cease to have effect Le, on 23‑3‑1990. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Arts.203‑D & 203‑F‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115], para. 25(3)(a)(b) & (c)‑‑Provisions of para 25(3)(a)(b)(c) of the Regulation are not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. It is unanimously held that the Federal Shariat Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction and the power under Chapter 3‑A of Part VII of the Constitution, to examine the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) and the Land Reforms Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and to decide whether or not provisions thereof are repugnant to Injunctions of Islam.

2. In accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Judges separately recorded, it is held that the following provisions of the Regulation, the Act and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to the extent indicated against each, are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam: (i) Para.2 clause (7) of the Regulation in so far as it includes Islamic Wakf for the purposes of other paras of the Regulation which are being held wholly or partly repugnant to Injunctions of Islam. (ii) The whole of paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 and consequentially paragraph 18, of the Regulation. (iii) Paragraphs 15, 16, 19 and 20 in so far as they ignore the rights and obligations, the terms and conditions of the grant, licence or lease, as the case may be, in resuming the stud and livestock farms, Shikargahs and Orchards and dealing further with them under paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof. (iv) Paragraph 17 of the Regulation in so far as it relates to Wakf and all other institutions which can validly fall within the definition of Islamic Wakf, and consequential to that extent paragraph 21 also. (v) Paragraph 25(1) of the Regulation in so far as it does not give sanctity to the grounds of ejectment available in a valid contract between the landlord and the tenant, entered into in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam. (vi) Paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Regulation has already been declared to b repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in Said Kamal's case (P f, D 1986 S C 360). (vii) The whole of sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(5), 8, 9, 10 and consequentially the whole of sections 11 to 17 of the Act. (viii) The whole of section 60‑A of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in so far as it makes non‑occupancy tenancy heritable irrespective of the terms of the contract.

3. The question of repugnancy or otherwise of paragraphs 22, 23, 24 of the Regulation is left undetermined in these proceedings as the Court feels that proper and full ass1stance has not been received and another decision of the Federal Shariat Court has come into field during the interregnum.

4. In accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Judges it is held that the provisions of paragraph 25(3) clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Regulation f C are not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.

5. Shariat Appeals Nos.1 of 1981, 3, 8, 9, 10, of 1981 and 1 of 1987 are allowed and Shariat Appeal No.4 of 1981 with the reservation contained in para.3 above and Shariat Appeal No.21 of 1984 are partly allowed. All the parties shall bear their own costs but the appellant in Shariat Appeal No.1 of 1981 being a Wakf shall be entitled to claim the costs from the respondent/the Federal Government.

6. This decision shall take effect on 23rd March, 1990 whereupon the provisions declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam will cease to have effect.

7. The operation of the self‑executory provisions of the Regulation and the Act, and the provisions ancillary thereto shall not in any manner be affected by this decision till the aforesaid provisions cease to have effect i.e. on 23‑3‑1990. M.B.A./Q‑27/S Order accordingly.