| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1292 2021 SLD 1292 2021 MLD 1165 |
Lahore High Court
Intra Court Appeal No. 13 of 2021, decided on 1st March, 2021.
CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, JUSTICE, JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Malik Javed Akhter Wains for Appellant.
Intra Court Appeal No. 13 of 2021, decided on 1st March, 2021.
CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, JUSTICE, JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Malik Javed Akhter Wains for Appellant.
MUHAMMAD YAQUB QURESHI
VS
CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionMandamus, writ ofScopeJurisdiction qua mandamus, being discretionary and extraordinary, is exercised in grave cases rather than in routineSuch discretion is exercised in all cases where there is a specified legal right and no specific legal remedy is available for enforcing such right, in order to obtain a writ or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, has to satisfy the Court that he has a legal right towards the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. Asadullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2005 SCMR 445 rel. ORDER Through this Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (the Ordinance, the Appellant has challenged the validity of impugned order dated 06.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.13239 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge (the Impugned Order) whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed in the following manner: In view of the facts narrated therein factum whereof has to be affirmed in the light of the record no specific direction can be issued for decision of the application, claiming proprietary rights in immoveable property. It appears that land claimed is actually under the ownership of Punjab Land Commission, but application was filed with Respondent No.3. This is a novel case where no acquisition process was adopted, as mandated by Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If at all, some rights were promised or allegedly extended to the Petitioner, same may seek appropriate remedy for its enforcement. 2. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record made available. 3. It evinces from the of impugned order that the learned Single Judge had refused to exercise discretion by giving directions on the basis of unverified assertions made by the Appellant. The jurisdiction qua mandamus being discretionary and extraordinary, is exercised in grave cases rather than in routine and such discretion is exercised in all cases where there is a specified…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492