Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 635 1982 SLD 635 1982 SCMR 1138
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 231-R of 1981, decision dated: 10-03-1982.(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 25-10-1981I of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 56/R. of 1981)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Samad Mahmood Advocate, Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN

VS

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AKHTAR AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Settlement Scheme No. IX---Para. 19 read with Para. 1(e) "Competent authority"-Conflict existing between para. 19 and definition of "competent authority" in para. 1 (e)--Former must prevail-Competent authority, hence, held, Committee as provided in para. 19 and not Deputy Administrator, Resi­dual Property- [Interpretation of statutes]. (b) Settlement Scheme No. IX- -----Para. 19-Appeal-Review-Committee, held, not conferred any power of appeal or review over that of Deputy Administrator in cases like one in hand- [Appeal (civil)-Review]. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- ----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-New point-Question not raised before High Court, held, could not be agitated before Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J -Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 25-10-1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Cons­titutional petition arising out of disposal of a property under the Evacuee Laws, was dismissed. According to the learned counsel, the facts strictly relevant for this petition are, that the building site in dispute being available property; was put on auction on 18-5-1981, in accordance with a scheme pre­pared by the Provincial Government. The petitioner was the highest bidder of Rs. 31,000 against the reserve price of Rs. 24,000. The committee supervising the auction not being competent finally, to accept the bid, referred the case under paragraph 19 of the scheme to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) for the acceptance/confirmation. The petitioner waited for the confirmation by the Deputy Ad­ministrator, when he received the information that a committee cons­tituted under the amended paragraph 19 (2) of the Scheme had refused to confirm the auction in his favour. Accordingly, he moved a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said refusal, which was dismissed on 25-10-1981. The petitioner has how sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has contended that under the amended para­graph 19(1) of the Scheme the "Competent Authority" would be empowered to refuse final confirmation/acceptance of the bid offered by the petitioner. And, the expression "Competent Authority"…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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