P L D 1966 (W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISA KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, QUETTA PISHIN, QUETTA
| Citation | P L D 1966 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. R. Kayani, C J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISA KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, QUETTA PISHIN, QUETTA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. R. Kayani, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 (W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISA KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, QUETTA PISHIN, QUETTA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaikh Muhammad Arif for Petitioners.
- M. Z. Kitchlew for Respondent No. 1.
- Muhammad Ahmad Mirza for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 6th August 1958.
Headnotes / Summary
Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901), Ss. 8, 9, 10 & 49 Provisions of Regulation relating to civil suits and revisions declared ultra vires the Constitution (1956) and therefore void‑Revision petition under S. 49 pending before Commissioner consequently returned to petitioner‑Order of Deputy Commissioner under S. 8, amounting to final settlement of case having effect, subject to revision, as decree of civil Court and S. 10 barring jurisdiction of civil Court to take cognizance of such matter‑Entire proceedings set aside to enable petitioner to seek remedy in civil Court‑Con stitution of Pakistan (1956), Arts. 4 &
5. Khan Abdul Akbar Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar P L D 1957 Pesh. 100.
Judgment & Decree
Shaikh Muhammad Arif for Petitioners. M. Z. Kitchlew for Respondent No.
1. Muhammad Ahmad Mirza for Respondents Nos. 1 to
4. Date of hearing: 6th August 1958. The petitioners in this case applied to the Deputy Commis sioner, Quetta, on the 29th July 1955, for permission to excavate a new Karez. The Deputy Commissioner referred the case to a Council‑of‑Elders, apparently under section 8, F. C. R., and the Council accepting the contentions of respondents Nos. 2 to 6, recommended the rejection of the application. The Deputy Commissioner thereupon rejected the petitioner's application and the petitioners went in revision under section 49, F. C. R., to the Commissioner. Before the revision petition could be heard, a Full Bench of the High Court decided in Khan Abdul Akbar Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar (P L D1957 Pesh. 100), that the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation relating to civil suits and revisions were void by reason of being unconstitutional. The Commis sioner, therefore, returned the revision petition to the petitioner who have now asked this Court to quash the entire proceedings because by reason of the fact that the revision petition was not decided the proceedings were robbed of finality. The decision in Writ Petition No. 6 of 1957 was also based on a similar argument.
2. It was contended for the respondent, however, that the application to the Deputy Commissioner was not one under section 8, F. C. R., and that, therefore, the order rejecting it was also not a decree under clause (d) of subsection (3) of section
8. The learned counsel has not been able to suggest any other provision of law under which the Deputy Commissioner could have acted, and although section 8 is not expressly mentioned, the circumstance that the case was referred to a Council‑of‑Elders points to action under section
8. If he has acted under section 8, then since under section 9, his order amounts to a final settlement of the case, having effect, subject to revision as a decree of a civil Court of ultimate resort, and since under section 10, no civil Court could take cognizance of anything with respect to which the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded under section 8, it is necessary that the entire proceedings be set aside to enable the petitioners to seek their remedy in a civil Court. If, however, the Deputy Commissioner has not acted under any law, then since his finding is likely to be raised as a defence in any suit that the petitioners might institute, it should be set aside on that ground.
3. The petition is, therefore, accepted and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated the 22nd of May 1956 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. S. A. H./S. Q. Petition accepted.