1986 PLP 2572 (MLD)

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Finding of fact arrived at by Authority below after thoroughly scrutinizing evidence on record, held, could not be determined in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, even though such Authority in giving decision thereon was little incorrect. Muhammad .Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 S C 139 ref. Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa for Petitioner. Muhammad Hassan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986. This Writ Petition calls in question an agreement of association, dated 30‑10‑1976 primarily on the ground of duress, force, coercion and absence of consideration. It was added that the respondent‑lady being a local could not, under the law, enter into any such association with the petitioner who was a refugee from the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

2. An objection has been raised that the Writ is not competent especially when it involves questions of fact. Reliance was placed upon Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 in which the rule laid down was that question of fact as also law may not be determined by the High Court in writ jurisdiction even though the authority having jurisdiction to determine them may not be much correct in giving a decision thereon. It was further contended that the embargo placed upon the locals in joining the transferees in such associations was removed by instructions issued on 5‑2‑1964 at page 405 of the Manual of Settlement. Still further it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that a civil suit had been brought by the petitioner and, therefore, his constitutional remedy was not open to him.

3. Mr. M.A. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner on the other hand vehemently contended that the suit had been rejected and, therefore, he had no other remedy excepting the present Writ. He reiterated that the embargo placed upon locals in joining transferees was still operative but could not cite any rule to that effect. In the Manual, all previous instructions on the point were superseded by the one issued on 5‑2‑1964 which allowed the transferees to associate locals even to the extent of totally abdicating themselves. In other words they could completely surrender their rights in favour of locals by entering into such association deeds. Obviously this ground fails.

4. There was no reference made in the writ petition as to the petitioner having brought the civil suit. It passes one's comprehension as to why such a material point was suppressed. If the plaint wash rejected as Mr. Bajwa seems to tell at the Bar, further remedy against the relevant order should have been sought. Even otherwise if an objection is raised before a Settlement Officer that the association was fake or forged or for that matter was based on duress or coercion, it falls within his competence to determine it as he has to accord approval to such a deed after thoroughly scrutinizing it. In this case the Settlement Officer concerned held thorough enquiry and had come to a conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the association deed. I do not think such a question of fact or finding could be determined through writ even though they may be a little incorrect.

5. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. H. B. T.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.