1989 PLP 123 (MLD)
Capt. ASADULLAH KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI through L.Rs. and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 123 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | Capt. ASADULLAH KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI through L.Rs. and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 123 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 123 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 123 (MLD) (Capt. ASADULLAH KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI through L.Rs. and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Manan for Petitioners.
- Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition‑Petitioner challenging order of Tribunal in respect of matter which had already been decided upto High Court where petitioner was also a party but such fact was suppressed from the Tribunal who passed judgment‑‑Matter which Tribunal was bound to consider was not brought to its notice and was kept out of consideration‑‑Order of Tribunal was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Case remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. Azmat Ali v. Chief Settlement & Reh. Commissioner PLD 1964 SC 260 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Abdul Manan for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Respondent No.
1. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar for Respondents Nos.2 and
3. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Border Area Committee, Faridkot House, Lahore dated 10‑12‑1987. It is unnecessary to go into long history of the case. It would suffice to observe that the litigation at the instance of the Tabia Marzi tenants who were petitioners before the Border Allotment Committee relating to the same land has had two rounds of litigation upto the High Court. This was by way of W.P. No. 448/R‑71, decided on 6‑7‑1972 and W.P. No. 2731/R‑76, decided on 28‑1‑1985.
2. Learned counsel for the Border Area Committee states that the fact that the matter has already been decided upto the level of the High Court was completely suppressed from the members of the Border Area Committee who rendered the impugned decision and he is unable to say that if this fact had been brought to the notice of the members of the Border Area Committee, what view they would have taker. Learned counsel for the petitioners would like me to assume the functions of the Border Area Committee but I am declining to oblige him.
3. If the matter which the Tribunal blow was bound to consider was not brought to its notice and was thus kept out of consideration, then the proper course for the High Court to be followed is to declare the order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and to remit the case to that very functionary to decide it in accordance with law. It is backed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Azmat Ali v. Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1964 SC 260). Sh. Abdul Manan, Advocate wants me to state the obvious. I am not ready to waste my breath for that, Purpose. The fact remains that if the petitioners were party to the previous proceedings in the High Court, then they are bound by it. This fact is to be considered by tile Border Area Committee in the light of binding dicta. It will be open for the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to raise whatever legal pleas are available to them before the Border Area Committee whatever be their worth.
4. In view of what has been observed above, the writ petition is accepted. The impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Border Area Committee will decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law after fully applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think there is any justification for keeping this matter lingering and the case in remand should be disposed of during next three months. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./A‑511/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.