MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD and others
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition challenging an impugned order concerning the validity of a sanction granted to a predecessor-in-interest, Mst. Iqbal Begum, by the Commissioner, Multan, on 16-8-1928. The core legal question addressed was whether the sanction granted in 1928 was validly obtained, a matter heavily disputed by the respondents. The Court observed that the determination of the validity of such a historical sanction involves factual and legal inquiries that cannot be resolved in the present proceedings. Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the sanction's validity, holding that such a determination must be made by a forum competent to decide the issue. The petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law, thereby leaving the substantive dispute open for adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Can the Supreme Court determine the validity of a historical sanction granted by a Commissioner in 1928 when the matter involves disputed facts?
- Is a petition the appropriate forum to resolve a disputed question regarding the validity of a sanction obtained by a predecessor-in-interest?
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he would not press the petition if an observation is made that the petitioners will be free to prove before the competent Court of law that late Mst.
Iqbal Begum, predecessorin-interest of respondents Nos.4 and 5, had obtained sanction from the Commissioner, Multan, on 16-8-1928.
2. We have gone through the impugned order and, in our opinion, the precise question involved in the instant case is, as to whether the sanction was validly granted in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos.4 and 5 on 16-8-1928. As far as this question is concerned, this can only be determined by a forum competent to decide the same. Learned counsel for the respondents, has seriously disputed the validity of the above sanction granted on 16-8-1928. Under the above circumstances, the petitioners may avail remedy before the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievance save in accordance with law.
3. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Cited by 2 cases
- Shoukat Babar Virk vs The State & another 2025 LHC 4784
- Shoukat Babar Virk Versus State 2025 YLR 2172