1990 PLP 846 (CLC)
KEVAL RAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
| Citation | 1990 PLP 846 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, .l |
| Parties | KEVAL RAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 846 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 846 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, .l.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 846 (CLC) (KEVAL RAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [MLR. 115], para. 29‑‑‑Notification No.II. 1977‑LR‑1‑78 dated 23‑9‑1978‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Abatement of proceedings‑‑‑Notification No.II 1977‑LR‑1‑78 dated 23‑9‑1978 is ultra vires of S. 25 of Land Reforms Act, 1977‑‑‑Proceedings revived by virtue of said notification were not legal‑‑‑Federal Government, although had power under S. 25 of the Act, to direct that a case or class of cases would not stand abated, yet it could not have issued notification directing that all cases which were pending before Federal Land Commission before enactment of Act shall not be abated‑‑‑Said notification in fact purported to nullify effect of S. 25 of Act as a whole and, therefore, it was ultra of powers of Federal Government.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th February, 1989. AJMAL MIAN, CJ. ‑‑This petition is directed against an order dated 14‑6‑1981 passed by respondent No. l in exercise of suo motu power contained in para.29 of MLR
115. It seems that while the above proceedings were pending before respondent No.1, Act No.II of 1977 was enacted, which inter alia included section 25, which provides as follows:‑‑ "
25. Abatement of pending proceedings:‑‑ All proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission shall, on commencement of this Act, stand abated unless the Federal Government directs otherwise in a case or class of cases."
2. In view of the above section 25, the proceedings were to abate unless the Federal Government would have otherwise directed in a case or class of cases. It seems that the Government of Pakistan in exercise of power conferred by section 25 of the Act issued Notification No.I1,1977 LR 1‑78 dated 23‑9‑1978 directing that the proceedings in cases under paragraph 29 of the MLR pending before the Federal Land Commission on the commencement of the Act shall not stand abated.
3. In a number of cases, we have held that the above notification was ultra vires of section 25 and, therefore, the proceeding revived by virtue of the above notification was not legal. The earliest case, which we have decided on 1‑11‑1988 is the case of Sher Muhammad and others v. Member Federal Commission and others (C.P. No.D‑2069 of 1979) in which we have inter alia held as follows:‑ "We are inclined to hold that under above quoted section 25 the Federal Government had the power to direct that a case or class of cases would not stand abated but it could not have issued the impugned Notification directing that all the cases which were pending before the Federal Land Commission before the enactment of the Act shall not be abated. The A impugned Notification in fact purports to nullify the effect of section 25 of the Act as a whole and, therefore, it is ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Government. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice issued in pursuance of the above impugned Notification also cannot be sustained."
4. We see no reason to take a different view in the above case and, therefore, the impugned order is declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./K‑166/K Petition allowed.