LT. COL. A. H. MINHAS vs GHULAM AHMAD AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court. The core legal question is whether the High Court acted within its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution by itself inquiring into the nature of the property in dispute—specifically, whether it was an appurtenance to the main transferred house or an independent residential unit—rather than remanding the case to the Settlement authorities for determination. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised regarding the excess of jurisdiction by the High Court requires consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to the deposit of security for costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000, establishing that factual inquiries into the nature of properties in settlement matters generally fall outside the scope of constitutional review when an appropriate remand to administrative authorities is the proper course.
- Does the High Court exceed its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 98 by inquiring into the nature of a property instead of remanding the case to the Settlement authorities?
- When is a case properly remanded to the Settlement authorities for determining whether a property is an appurtenance or an independent residential unit?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-It is contended that on the view formed by the High Court it was proper to remand the case to the Settlement authorities for determining whether the property in dispute was an appurtenance to the main house transferred in favour of the petitioner or that it was an independent residential unit. However, the High Court itself entered upon an inquiry, as to the nature of the property which did not fall within its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution.
2. The contention raised requires consideration. We grant leave to appeal. Security for costs shall be deposited in the sum of Rs. 1,000.