MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged a notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, assuming control of certain land as waqf property. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to entertain the writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entirely justified in dismissing the writ petition because the petitioner had an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 7 of the said Ordinance to seek a declaration before the District Judge. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 98 will not ordinarily be exercised when an adequate alternative statutory remedy is available to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of property.
- Whether a writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution is maintainable when an adequate alternative remedy is provided under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961?
- Can a person aggrieved by a notification under Section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 approach the District Judge for a declaration regarding the nature of the property?
- Section 6, West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Section 7, West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961
ORDER
1. M. R. KHAN, J.--The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, by a Notification under section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, assumed the administration, control and management of a certain land as waqf property. The petitioner denied the land to be a waqf property and asserted his personal interest therein. Accordingly, he made a writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution calling in question the validity of the said Notification. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy under section 7 of the said Ordinance. Section 7 of the Ordinance provides that any one aggrieved by a Notification under section 6 can move the District Judge having the territorial jurisdiction to have a declaration that the property in question is not a waqf property. An appeal against the decision of the District Judge lies to the High Court. In view of the remedies available under the Ordinance, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. In fact, the petitioner, as conceded by the learned counsel, has since moved the District Judge under section 7 of the Ordinance.
2. The petition is dismissed. 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.