DINAR WALI KHAN And Others vs REHMAN DEYAR And Other
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over the ownership of land in the erstwhile State of Chitral, where both parties claimed ownership declarations. An Additional Deputy Commissioner had declared the land State property in 1975, while the Federal Land Commission later found in favour of one set of petitioners for half the property, a decision that remained largely unaltered upon review by the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes Swat and Chitral. A subsequent writ petition in the High Court was dismissed, but the Division Bench additionally held that the relief granted to the opposing petitioners was unjustified, prompting cross-petitions for leave to appeal. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court is whether the High Court could, in its writ jurisdiction, deprive a party of the advantage gained from lower forums. The Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine this and other raised questions, requiring security of Rs.5,000 in each case.
- Whether the High Court can in its writ jurisdiction deprive a party of the advantage gained from lower forums?
- Can ownership claims regarding land in the erstwhile State of Chitral be adjudicated through constitutional petitions?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by both the opposite sides in a dispute regarding claim of ownership of land within the area of erstwhile State of Chitral. Both the parties were claimant for declaration of ownership in their respective favour. An Additional Deputy Commissioner declared the property by an order in 1975, as the State property and not belonging to any of the present parties. The Federal Land Commission gave a verdict in favour of the petitioners in C.P. 85-P of 1987 to the extent of half of the property. The petitioners in the other petition failed. A review petition under the changed law came up before the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes Swat and Chitral did not result in any material change. The writ petition filed by one side; namely, the petitioners in C.P. 91-P of 1987 in the High Court was dismissed. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, however, while dismissing the said Writ Petition also held that the relief given to the other side (petitioners in C.P. 85-P of 1987) was unjustified. Thus both the parties felt aggrieved and they have sought leave to appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P. 91-P of 1987 and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, ASC, who was present to seek adjournment in C.P.85-P of 1987 on behalf of Qazi Muhammad Anwar the learned counsel appearing therein, we consider it a fit case to examine: whether, the High Court could have in its writ jurisdiction deprive the petitioners in C.P. 85-P of 1987 of the advantage which they had gained from the lower forums. The other questions raised in these petitions also require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted in both of them.
3. Security Rs.5,000 in each case.