2006 SCMR 1073 (PLP)
QURBAN ALI and another — Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 SCMR 1073 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Hamid Ali Mirza and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | QURBAN ALI and another — Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 SCMR 1073 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 SCMR 1073 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Hamid Ali Mirza and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 SCMR 1073 (PLP) (QURBAN ALI and another — Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---Rr. 67-A & 67-B---Forcible wrongful dispossession---Provisions of Rr.67-A & 67-B of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968---Applicability---Factual controversy---Constitutional petition before High Court---Maintainability---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was wrongfully dispossessed from disputed land and Revenue Authorities passed an order in his favour---Respondents, instead of assailing that order before Revenue Authorities, had filed civil suit which was subsequently withdrawn---Later on the respondents filed Constitutional petition before High Court against that order which was allowed and order passed by Revenue Authorities in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was set aside---Validity---Constitutional petition, in view of factual controversy, was not maintainable---Case not being that of demarcation or eviction of a person in unauthorized possession provisions of Rr.67-A & 67-B of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, were not applicable---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was allowed.Abdur Rashid Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.Yasin Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.6 to 10.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 19-9-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Writ Petition No.4751 of 1993).
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
This civil petition is directed against the judgment dated 19-9-2003 passed in Writ Petition No.4751 of 1993 by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the said writ petition was allowed hence the present petition. (2). Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo. of petition. (3). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and caveator and have gone through the record. We find that learned Judge in Chambers of High Court passed the impugned order on the wrong assumption that it was a case of demarcation and eviction of a person in unauthorized possession. Perusal of application filed by the petitioner at page 37 of the Paper Book would show that it was a case of forcible wrongful dispossession of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners by the respondent No.6. The said order dated 21-7-1993 obtained by the petitioner's predecessor was not challenged before the Revenue Authority by way of appeal by the respondents but a suit was filed by the respondent No.6 which was subsequently withdrawn and then writ petition was filed which on the face of record was not competent in view of the factual controversy, in the circumstances of the case. We also find that Rules 67-A and 67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 were not applicable in the case as it was not a case of demarcation or eviction of the person in unauthorized possession in lieu thereof. 2.(sic) In the circumstances of the case the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed however, the aggrieved party would at liberty to avail the remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with, law. M.H./Q-21/SC Appeal allowed.