| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 443 1992 SLD 443 1992 PLD 819 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.65 of 1992, decision dated: 24-06-1992
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAL C.J. AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J
C.M. Latif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by: Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent).
Civil Appeal No.65 of 1992, decision dated: 24-06-1992
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAL C.J. AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J
C.M. Latif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by: Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent).
MUHAMMAD ASLAM
VS
Syed AHMED NAEEM. and 9 others
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 36---West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr.17 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted in order to examine the contention that in the matter of appointment of a Lambardar the order of the Member of Board of Revenue remanding the case was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ---S. 36---West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr.17 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Appointment of Lambardar---Board of Revenue remanding the case---High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, held, fell into error in interfering with the remand order by Board of Revenue. In the present case the High Court instead of waiting for the decision by the Revenue Authorities on various legal points involved in the case including whether Rule 17 or Rule 19, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 would be attracted, took up on itself the function of the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate upon the appointment of the "successor" Lambardar. It was yet to be decided whether the original appointment on the newly-added post was not proper nor with lawful authority. After the said decision. several other legal and factual aspects would have been examined by the authorities concerned, so as to appoint a successor Lumbardar. This would also be a moot point whether or not Rule 17 or Rule 19 was attracted. The High Court thus itself fell into error in interfering with the remand order. It was during the remand proceedings that the questions of fact and law involved in the case would have been decided by the designated authorities. It was only thereafter, namely, after ultimate decision of the Board of Revenue (after/subsequent to remand proceedings) that the High Court might/could have examined the matter in its writ jurisdiction. And interference would have been possible only if the necessary requirements would have been satisfied. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ. ---This appeal through leave of the Court has arisen out of a Lumbardari matter relating…
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