Mian RASOOL SHAH and others vs FAKHARUZZAMAN KHAN through his Legal
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the implementation of land reform orders. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in interfering with an order passed by the Member of the Federal Land Commission, which had set aside an earlier, allegedly erroneous order by a successor Chief Land Commissioner. The petitioners contend that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was not permitted to include the disputed area in Form LC-II under Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959, and that a subsequent administrative order wrongly allowed this inclusion. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners' contentions regarding the impropriety of the administrative interpretation and the High Court's subsequent interference with the Federal Land Commission's corrective order appeared prima facie to have force. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's judgment and ordered the suspension of the impugned judgment, directing that status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Whether the High Court has the authority to interfere with an order passed by the Member of the Federal Land Commission that corrects a prior administrative error?
- Can land area be included in Form LC-II if it was previously excluded by the Land Commission authorities?
- Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was not permitted to include the area in dispute in the amended Form LC-II (prescribed under Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959) by the Land Commission authorities (as is evident from the order of the Land Commissioner, dated 17-7-1964 and that of the Chief Land Commissioner, Mr.I.U. Khan, dated 5-3-1965), but this was wrongly allowed to be done during the proceedings taken in connection with the implementation of these orders, pursuant to a wrong interpretation placed thereon by MrAbu Nasr - a successor Chief Land Commissioner--in his order dated 17-10-1968 appears prima facie to have force.
2. ' The further submission that the order of Mr. Abdul Qayyum, Member Federal Land Commission dated 12-6-1976, who set aside the aforementioned erroneous order of MrAbu Nasr dated 27-10- 1968 has been wrongly interfered with by the learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court by their impugned judgment, also needs consideration.
3. ' Leave granted.
4. ' Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs,10,000.
5. ' Meanwhile the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30-6-1987 shall remain suspended and the status quo maintained.