MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Others vs PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STAFF
This matter concerns the scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in the context of suo motu actions. The petitioners challenged a High Court judgment that had set aside an allotment of land made to petitioner No. 6 in 1973, despite the fact that this specific allotment was not challenged in the underlying writ petition (Writ Petition No. 402-R of 1976). The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, possesses the authority to issue a writ suo motu regarding matters not raised by the parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot issue a writ suo motu while deciding a writ petition. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order insofar as it declared the 1973 allotment to be without lawful authority. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the original allotment, establishing the principle that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is confined to the issues properly brought before it and does not extend to suo motu interventions.
- Can the High Court issue a writ suo motu while deciding a writ petition?
- Is a High Court order setting aside an allotment of land valid if the allotment was not challenged in the writ petition?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioner No.6, a displaced claimant from India, was allotted 42 kanals of land by the Settlement Commissioner ` (Lands) Mr. Zaka Ullah Malik on 1-2-1973 in village Bhakewal. He sold the said land to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 4 and to Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner No.5. The order of allotment dated 1-2-1973 was not challenged in Writ Petition No.402-R of 1976. However, this allotment too has been set aside by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 6-4-1988 while accepting the aforesaid writ petition.
2. The contention urged before us is that the High Court could not have set aside the said allotment because it cannot, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, issue a writ suo motu.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have been heard.
4. We have held while disposing of Civil Petition No.334-R of 1988, which has been heard alongwith this petition, that the High Court cannot while deciding a writ petition issue a writ suo motu and have converted the said petition into an appeal and allowed it. This case is also quite similar.
5. The result is that this petition for leave is also converted into an appeal and allowed. The order of the High Court dated 6-4-1988 to the extent that it has declared the order of allotment dated 1-2- 1973 made in favour of petitioner No.6 to be without lawful authority is found to be erroneous in law and is hereby set aside. It is declared that the aforesaid order dated 1-2-1973 is valid, legal and subsisting and rules the field.
6. No costs.