N. M. KHAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND OTHERS vs DR. ABDUR RAUF
This matter arises from two appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the demarcation of boundary lines between two residential properties, Nos. 45 and 47 Empress Road, Lahore. During the hearing, the Court had previously appointed the Chief Engineer of the Lahore Municipal Corporation as a Commissioner by consent of the parties to demarcate the boundary line using the earliest available authentic municipal and taxation record. The core legal question was whether the report submitted by the Local Commissioner complied with the directions of the Court. The Supreme Court held that instead of strictly demarcating the boundary line, the Commissioner had attempted to devise a more equitable way of dividing the houses, thereby exceeding his mandate and failing to follow the Court's directions. Consequently, the Court refused to accept the Commissioner's report. The key principle laid down is that a Local Commissioner must strictly adhere to the specific terms and directions of the judicial appointment order rather than substituting their own judgment on equitable division.
- Whether a report submitted by a Local Commissioner who fails to follow the specific directions of the court can be accepted?
- Can a Local Commissioner devise an equitable division of properties instead of performing the ordered demarcation?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-During the course of hearing of these two appeals on 14-5-1978 this Court had passed an order with the consent of the learned counsel for the two contesting parties appointing the Chief Engineer of the Lahore Municipal Corporation as a Commissioner for demarcating the boundary line separating the two houses in question bearing property Nos. 45 and 47 Empress Road, Lahore, after taking into full consideration the earliest available authentic municipal and taxation record of these properties. The learned Commissioner has since submitted his report. Against it the learned counsel for the appellant has filed his objections in writing. We find that instead of demarcating the boundary line separating the two houses, the learned Local Commissioner has proceeded to devise a more equitable way of dividing these-houses. Therefore, the report submitted by him is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and cannot be accepted.
2. ' He has devoted his time and energy in compiling his report under the order passed by this Court with the agreement of the parties. His fees are therefore, fixed at Rs, 1,000 which may be paid to him by the petitioners/appellants and respondent No, 1 in equal shares. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- FAIZOO and others vs RAEES BAQAR KHAN and others 1998 MLD 225