1991 PLP 1482 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus DAD MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1482 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus DAD MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1482 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1482 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1482 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus DAD MUHAMMAD and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1987.
- Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 9th December, 1986 in C.P. No.1l of 1974).
S. 8(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Failure of Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction according to law
Effect-- Supreme Court after having gone through record of case in the light of arguments addressed by petitioners, agreed with views that prevailed with High Court in deciding case against petitioners
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Balochistan High Court, dated 9th 'December, 1986 by which a Constitution Petition filed by respondents 1 to 4 was allowed and the impugned orders of respondents 5 and 6 were set aside and the case between the parties was remanded to the Court of Qazi, Bori‑Sanjavi at Loralai, having jurisdiction under the Regulation of 1976, with the direction to adjudicate upon the matter in accordance with the provisions of the said Regulation. The reasons that prevailed with the High Court in setting aside the impugned orders may be stated by reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which read as under:‑‑ "The respondent No.1 (respondent No.5 herein) also did not proceed according to law in the revision which was filed before him under section 49 of the F.C.R. Instead of deciding the point at issue one way or the other he simply called for a report from the Settlement Officer who, not having any legal capacity under the F.C.R., was not competent to give any opinion in the matter and the Commissioner also should not have acted on that opinion. The question before the respondent No.1 was whether to uphold the decision of the respondent No.2 or to set it aside as being against the provisions of subsection (3) of section 8 of the F.C.R. or to remand the case to him to give a clear finding. On the contrary the Commissioner held late Mekhtar and respondent No.3 as exclusive owners of disputed property and dismissed the revision petition improperly. It was the duty of respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition according to law and we are compelled to accept this Constitutional petition on the simple ground that the respondent No.1 failed to exercise authority vested in him under the law and for the additional reason that the respondent No.2 also failed to adjudicate in the matter in accordance with law:" After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we whole heartedly agree with the views that have prevailed with the learned High Court recorded above and there is therefore no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1432/S Petition dismissed.