1986 PLP 699 (SCMR)
Mst. TOORA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 699 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. TOORA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 699 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 699 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 699 (SCMR) (Mst. TOORA and others‑‑Petitioners Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986
- Abdul Rahim Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 13th December, 1384 in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Question of fact‑‑Determina tion of area and identity of property transferred by Settlement authorities‑‑Question of fact determined by Court having attained finality and considered as unexceptionable in revisional jurisdiction by High Court‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal. Abdul Rahim Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Leave is sought on the ground that the Local Commissioner's report puts the area of the property in dispute No.25/C at 868 sq‑ ft‑ and this categorical statement cannot be countermanded by the calculations given in the Scheme Exh.C.W.l/2. Further, the statement of the Commissioner in Court wherein he endeavoured to show that a further area of 401 sq. ft was part of property No.25/C totally destroys the evidentiary value of all the exercise the learned Appellate Court could not abdicate its functions in favour of the Local Commissioner regarding the title of the disputed site; that the declaration of the Assistant Commissioner was final and could not be called in question by a civil Court. The admission of the plaintiff /respondent himself as in his application Exh.P.W.l/D.1 was sufficient to give a lie to his claim that the plot declared by the Assistant Commissioner was a part of, his House No.25/C.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and various orders on the record. The learned Additional District Judge, considering the facts, was justified in appointing Commissioner for ascertaining the identity of the site in dispute and thereafter considering the report and the evidence recorded by the Commissioner on the spot and in the light of the evidence already available on the file came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was transferee of the suit land on the basis of a valid transfer made in his favor and P.T.D. issued. This question of fact determined by the learned, Additional District Judge has attained finality and is considered as unexceptional in revisional jurisdiction by the learned High Court Judge. Thus, we find no merit in this petition which is consequently dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.