FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Another vs IIABIB AHMAD And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition and set aside concurrent findings of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board and a Joint Secretary regarding an urban settlement case concerning evacuee property. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent factual and legal findings, alongside issues concerning internal conflicts in the impugned judgment, the character of the property as evacuee trust property, and the principle of approbate and reprobate regarding the respondent's inconsistent pleas. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court erred in its exercise of writ jurisdiction and treatment of factual aspects, directing that the interim order previously passed shall continue in operation.
- Whether the High Court can competently set aside concurrent findings of fact and law rendered by administrative tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a party is barred from pleading that a property is not evacuee trust property when they had earlier claimed otherwise?
- Whether an impugned judgment suffering from internal conflict of findings and inadequate discussion warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- When should the High Court decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of a litigant?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has beer sought by the petitioners; against the acceptance by the High Court of a Constitutional Petition which had arisen out of an urban settlement case relating to evacuee property.
2. The question raised before the High Court by the respondent No.1 stood decided on merits and facts by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board and also by a Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the concurrent findings were set aside by the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the proceedings and have urged and reiterated the points raised in this petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the caveator also we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal on the questions raised in this petition as well as to examine further: whether, the impugned judgment does not suffer from inter se conflict of findings and conclusions as also inadequate discussion and treatment of the factual aspects of the controversy; and whether, the property had not the character of evacuee trust property. In this context it would also require examination: whether, the respondent was at all within his right to plead before the High Court that the property was not evacuee trust property because he himself had earlier claimed that it was evacuee trust property. Therefore, these and other similar questions would also further lead to another major question: as to whether, in the circumstances of this case the High Court should have exercised its writ jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.
5. Interim order passed on 14-3-1990 shall continue in operation.