WAQAR ALI ZAFAR and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition against the requisitioning of property. The petitioners contended that the requisition order issued by the Commissioner was unlawful because they were in actual occupation of the disputed property, and additionally argued that the house was incomplete and required further construction. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could determine the factual controversy regarding the vacancy or occupation of the property at the time of requisition. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, holding that the High Court correctly declined to engage in a factual inquiry regarding the vacancy of the property, as such disputes fall within the domain of a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that where a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending, the civil court is the competent forum to adjudicate factual disputes concerning the status of the property at the time of its requisition.
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction determine factual disputes regarding whether a property was vacant at the time of its requisition?
- Is a civil court the appropriate forum to adjudicate factual controversies concerning the occupation status of requisitioned property when a civil suit is pending?
- Section 3, Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act 1956
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--In this petition for leave to appeal the petitioners have challenged the order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30 November, 1980.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the disputed property was requisitioned under section 3 of the Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act 1956 by the Commissioner Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 18 June, 1980. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by way of writ petition contending that the impugned order could not be passed as the petitioners were in actual occupation of the disputed property. The same argument has been advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners who has raised an additional argument to the effect that the house in question was an incomplete house which required further construction.
3. This argument does not figure in the High Court judgment and has not even been raised in this form as is apparent from communication, dated 9 July, 1980 at page 16 of the paper book. Be that as it may the writ petition was dismissed for the reason that the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents indicated that the disputed property was rightly requisitioned as it was lying vacant. Since the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction could not involve itself in an inquiry as to whether or not property in dispute was lying vacant at the time of requisition and that since such a controversy could only be determined by a Court of plenary jurisdiction, it was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel has pointed out that the civil suit of the petitioners against the impugned order of the Commissioner was still pending decision in the civil Court. If it is so pending then the civil Court is competent to determine the question as to whether the property in dispute was lying vacant at the time of its requisition or it was under the actual occupation of the petitioners..