BARKAT vs SHAHAB DIN And 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court, which had originated from a dispute over land surrendered under land reforms. The petitioner challenged an order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner remanding the case for fresh decision by filing a writ petition directly in the High Court, bypassing the hierarchical review mechanism available under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that an adequate alternative remedy was available under Section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, enabling the Federal Government or Federal Land Commission to review the case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner failed to avail the adequate alternative remedy provided by law and that the remand order ought to have been scrutinized through the statutory hierarchy before invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained when an adequate statutory remedy is available under the Land Reforms Act, 1977?
- Whether the availability of a revisional remedy under the land reforms hierarchy bars the invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
- Is a remand order passed by a land commissioner required to be challenged through the available departmental hierarchy before seeking constitutional remedies?
- Section 27, Land Reforms Act 1977
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal is being sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner---s Writ Petition which had arisen out of grant of land surrendered under the Land Reforms.
2. The petitioner having succeeded before the lower forum of the Land Commission Authorities appeal of the respondents' side was dismissed but their revision having been allowed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner the case was remanded for fresh decision. The petitioner instead of further challenging the remand order in the hierarchy of the Land Reforms set up directly, filed a writ petition in the High Court and the same having been dismissed mainly on the ground of availability of another adequate remedy, has sought leave to appeal.
3. In this behalf it was observed as follows in the impugned. Judgment:- "It has also been noticed that under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the petitioner could move the Federal Government (Federal Land Commission) to call for a case decided by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and to pass such order as it might deem necessary. The remedy provided under Section 27 had not been availed by the petitioner before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This course of action is not warranted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973."
4. When questioned in this behalf learned counsel frankly conceded that another remedy was available to the petitioner; but tried to explain that it being a revisional remedy; the writ petition should not have been dismissed on this ground. He also contended that the orders impugned before the High Court being illegal, the same could be straightaway challenged in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court instead of the same being brought before the higher forum in the heirarchy of the Land Commission Authorities.
5. On the first point we do not agree with the learned counsel that the relief which was sought before the High Court could not be granted by way of the other remedy available to him. Nor it it possible to hold that in the circumstances of this case it would have been futile exercise to seek that remedy. On the other hand the remand order could and should have been adequately brought under scrutiny before the higher forum provided by law. Accordingly, with the said observations this petition is dismissed.