Pakistan Case LawLAND REFORMS COMMISSION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and anothers Versus Mst. AZRA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court, which admitted a Constitution Petition for regular hearing and granted interim relief to the respondents. The dispute originated from proceedings initiated by the Land Reforms Commission under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, regarding the respondent's land holdings and the failure to file a declaration by the statutory deadline. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision to admit the petition, arguing that the legal position was already settled by the Supreme Court in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's interim order, reasoning that since the petition was already admitted for regular hearing, the petitioners would have a full opportunity to present their arguments and cite the relevant precedent before the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, while expressing an expectation that the High Court would dispose of the pending Constitution Petition expeditiously.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order of the High Court admitting a constitutional petition for regular hearing?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal when the petitioner has the opportunity to argue the merits of the case before the High Court?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby Constitution Petition filed by the respondents was admitted for regular hearing and interim relief was also granted.
2.Respondent No, 1 filed declaration under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Deputy Land Commissioner by his order dated 8-7-1974 determined her holding to 19645 produce index units, allowed her to retain 14000 produce index units and resumed 5645 produce index units in favour of the Government. By Land Reforms Act, 1977, the ceiling of individual holding was further reduced, but respondent No, 1 did not file declaration by 25-5-1977. In March 1989, petitioner No, 2 initiated proceedings under section 3 of the Land Reforms Act, against which a Constitution Petition was filed by the respondents, which was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh one after the decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner. As the further proceedings were taken, the respondents filed Constitution Petition in which the impugned order was passed.
3.The learned counsel contended that the legal position stands settled by judgment reported in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Additional Advocate- General contended that in view of this judgment there existed no ground for admitting the petition for regular hearing. The petition has been admitted for regular hearing and the petitioners will have the opportunity to argue the case and place before the learned Judges of the High Court the judgment cited by them. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. We refuse to grant leave. However, we expect that the High Court would dispose of the petition filed by the respondents expeditiously.
Cited by 1 case
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAMOON KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 608
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments