1984S C M R 31 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. THROUGH COMMISSIONER. PESHAWAR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984S C M R 31 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. THROUGH COMMISSIONER. PESHAWAR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984S C M R 31 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984S C M R 31 (PLP)?
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: 1984S C M R 31 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. THROUGH COMMISSIONER. PESHAWAR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for respondents.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16th March; 1983 of the Peshawar High Court, passed in Civil Revision No. 23 of 1982). West Pakistan Wakf Properties Ordinance (XXVIII of 1961) -- S. 17-Auction of leasehold right No legal bar on such auction Jurisdiction of civil Courts completely ousted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.‑‑In this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order dated 16th September, 1971, by which the Administrator of Auqaf, N.‑W. F. P., directed that the disputed plots be put to, auction of which the petitioners were the tenants. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any legal bar against the auction of lease‑hold right, but he was unable to point out any. There is also another hurdle in the way of the petitioners and that is the bar of jurisdiction of civil Court to go into this question by reason of section 17 of the Waqf Ordinance, 1961, and the subsequent enactments repealing and re‑enacting it in which the same provision exists. The High Court, accordingly, has held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was completely ousted and we agree with it. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M .Z .M Petition dismissed.