1989 PLP (1) (SCMR)
NOSHER KHAN Petitioner Versus TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL JARANWALA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NOSHER KHAN Petitioner Versus TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL JARANWALA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (1) (SCMR) (NOSHER KHAN Petitioner Versus TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL JARANWALA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 2‑6‑1981 in Writ Petition No.5749 of 1980). ‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Question whether any amount was due from the petitioner, a Lambardar,, or not is one of fact‑‑Contention that amount being demanded from Lambardar was not due or that the amount due was less than the demanded one was for the authorities concerned to examine‑‑Dismissal of Constitutional petition of petitioner by High Court not suffering from any legal error‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A Lambardar having challenged the recovery of Government dues and consequential issuance of warrants of his arrest, failed in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. He has now sought leave to appeal. The question whether any amount is due from the petitioner or not is 1 one of fact. The observation of the High Court that the petitioner had other remedy under the Land Revenue Act has not been challenged. Learned counsel, however, vehemently repeated the argument that the amount being demanded from the petitioner is not due. And that the amount due is less than the demanded one. This question is for the authorities concerned to examine. He even now can seek remedy in accordance with the observations made by the High Court. The dismissal of his writ petition does not suffer from any legal error. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.B.A./N‑151/S Leave refused.