1984 PLP 59 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SULTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents.
| Citation | 1984 PLP 59 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SULTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents. |
| Primary Law | (a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 59 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 59 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 59 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SULTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah uddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th March, 1983.
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah uddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order. of the Lahore High Court, dated 15th March, 1981 in W. P. 434/75)
Art. 9-Question relating to factual inquiry and assessment not raised before tribunal-High Court justified in refusing to entertain same in wit jurisdiction.
Art. 185 (3)-Assertion by petitioner that all points were raised before lower tribunal and also before High Court-Bare statement of petitioner, held, cannot be preferred over contents of relevant orders-Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAINMAD AFLAL ZULLAH, J.‑Order passed by a learned "Member, Board of Revenue, in the revisional jurisdiction in a consolidation matte having been challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioners failed to obtain the desired relief, therefore, they have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel, as in addition to the arguments raised in the High Court, has tried to advance other arguments on merits, with the assertion that they also, were taken in the memo. of the writ petition, One of the arguments raised in the High Court was that the petitioners were not, afforded due opportunity of hearing. This point has been decided against them on a finding of fact which does riot suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. The argument that the land originally belonging to the petitioners should have been allowed to remain with them at least insofar as the major parcel thereof is concerned was not pressed before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, the learned judge in the High Court refused to entertain it in writ jurisdiction. The exercise of discretion in this behalf is not against any principle. The question raised in the High Court was relatable to factual inquiry and assessment. I should have been pressed before the Tribunal concerned so that the High Court would have been benefited by the opinion of the Tribunal. The refusal to entertain such an argument in the circumstances of the case i unexceptionable. Learned counsel tried to assert it that all the points were raised before the learned Member, Board of Revenue and also before the High Court. We regret, his bare statement cannot be preferred over the contents of the relevant orders. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. M. Z. M Petition dismissed