1983 PLP 58 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAHIMYARKHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 58 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAHIMYARKHAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 58 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAHIMYARKHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 17th August, 1982.
- Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 5tb July, 1981 in I.C.A. No. 30/81/BWP). Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Petitioner also moving departmental authorities for affording himself relief-Petitioner, held, first to exhaust such remedy before getting his claim adjudicated on merits-Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a former allottee of State land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑7‑1981 whereby his appeal against the dismissal of the constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed, The petitioner had received allotment of State land for cultivation. The lease period was a year and extended from time to time finally expiring in Rabi 1978. The petitioner wanted the extension of the lease in his favour for 5 years in terms of the policy then in force on the strength of a circular dated 8th of June, 1975. Before orders could be passed the policy of the Colonies Department changed and all such land was ordered to be disposed by the auction. The application of the petitioner was filed by the Collector. The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Collector to review his lease for five years by resort to the Constitutional petition which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no vested right either to be heard or to be granted the extension of the lease which he was claiming. His appeal also failed. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed us that the petitioner bas also now moved the departmental authorities for affording him relief a according to him the Board of Revenue has in certain other cases pending before it granted such allottees the required relief. We notice that in this case the petitioner had approached the High Court without exhausting the departmental remedy. The petitioner should first exhaust that remedy before getting his claim adjudicated on merits. In view of the petitioner having availed of the departmental remedy in the meantime he should exhaust. This petition is therefore disposed of in terms of these obser vations and the leave to appeal is refused. Leave refused.