Remand Order

2019 MLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityRemand orderConstitutional petition would lie against final adjudication of case

Remand order being not final adjudication, Constitutional petition against remand order was not maintainable.

2018 PLD 198 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

PrinciplesRemand should only be resorted to when it was absolutely necessary for a fair and proper adjudication of the case

Unnecessary remand not only resulted in undue delay in cases but consequently also prolonged the agony of the litigants.

2013 PTD 243 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

O.XLI, R.23Remand orderEffect

Such order would determine parameters of subsequent adjudication.

2013 PTD 1809 CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-II LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.194AAppeal to the Appellate TribunalRemand orderRevival of order by the original Adjudicating Authority already set aside by the Appellate TribunalValidity

Operating para of the order-in-original in compliance to the directions of Appellate Tribunal's order did not answer the queries posed by it

Adjudicating Authority without application of mind fairly inked that he did not find any cogent reasons to alter the order-in-original and revive it by putting life into a dead body

Order had been based by reviving an order which had lost its validity was in itself a nullity in law and was a void order

Answer to question "whether upholding of an order which had already been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal could be revived by the original Adjudicating Authority to whom it was remanded to decide a fresh" was answered in the negative.

2004 SCMR 80 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 2(2)Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 11 & 14A(1)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3), 189 & 199Remand order

Excess land got allotted by petitioners was cancelled on Mukhbari information in year 1969 and was transferred to respondent-Mukhbar after one month

Constitutional petition filed against cancellation of excess land was dismissed by High Court, but Supreme Court while dismissing petition for leave to appeal observed that petitioners should approach Settlement Authorities for reconsideration of their case sympathetically to allow them to retain excess land on payment of market value

Petitioners made application for allotment of excess land, over which Assistant Commissioner as Notified Officer sold such land to them

Respondents challenged such order through Constitutional petition, which was accepted

Contention of petitioners was that order passed by Supreme Court was a remand order in terms of S. 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, thus, High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside order of Assistant Commissioner, who had lawful authority to sell such land

Validity

Supreme Court in earlier judgment had not set aside order of High Court, which was operating against petitioners confirming cancellation of excess land from their names

Supreme Court had not remanded case to Settlement Authorities for redressal of grievance of petitioners, except observing that their request should be considered sympathetically

Petitioners' claim could be considered, if they had succeeded in establishing a legal right in their favour

Petitioners could not be accommodated sympathetically as no land was available for transfer in their favour

So long as order of transfer of excess land passed in favour of respondents in year 1969 was holding field, no subsequent sale of such land to petitioners could take place

Notified Officer had no authority to pass fresh order in favour of petitioners causing prejudice/injustice to respondents, who had acquired valuable rights in property

Considering the case sympathetically would mean that petitioners should be accommodated if possible, but not at the cost of others

High Court was quite justified in allowing Constitutional petition filed by respondent

Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave.