Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Industries And Mineral Department And 8 Other1992 PLD LAHORE 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the validity of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, and a specific notification dated 18-6-1991, which imposed stringent financial and property ownership conditions on participants in government auctions for mineral leases. The petitioners argued that the Rules suffered from excessive delegation and that the notification was ultra vires. The Court held that the delegation of rule-making power under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, was valid, as the legislature cannot be expected to provide for every detail and may delegate regulatory powers to the executive. However, the Court ruled that the notification issued by the Licensing Authority was invalid. The holding was based on the principle of 'delegatus non potest delegare' (a delegate cannot further delegate), noting that the Act empowered the Government to frame rules, but did not authorize the Government to sub-delegate that power to a subordinate Licensing Authority. Furthermore, the Court found the notification's conditions to be unreasonable, discriminatory, and contrary to public policy by restricting fair competition.
Questions settled- Does the delegation of rule-making power under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, constitute excessive delegation?
- Can a delegatee of legislative power further delegate that power to a subordinate authority without express statutory authorization?
- Is the requirement for participants in a government auction to own immovable property as a condition for bidding legally sustainable?
- Does the principle of 'delegatus non potest delegare' apply to the sub-delegation of administrative rule-making powers?
- Shaukat Ali And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Alias Gopa vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
- Shams Ud Din vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 210 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
- Shamman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Shamim Bibi vs Allah Ditta1992 CLC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- Shamas-Ud-Din vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power, Lahore And 3 Other1992 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a learned Single Judge's dismissal of a constitutional petition concerning the restoration of a dismantled watercourse. The core legal questions revolved around the Divisional Canal Officer's (DCO) power to review an earlier order under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and the interpretation of conditions precedent for such an order. The Court held that the DCO's initial order, which directed interim restoration of a watercourse, was ultra vires and without jurisdiction because the DCO had neither conducted the mandatory inquiry himself nor afforded a hearing to the affected parties. Consequently, the DCO possessed inherent power to review and set aside this void order. The Court affirmed that the power to conduct an inquiry and grant a hearing under Section 68-A cannot be delegated. An order made without fulfilling these conditions precedent is without jurisdiction and not protected by the finality clause, thus being amenable to challenge in civil courts. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the DCO's subsequent order that set aside the initial illegal order.
Questions settled- Can a Divisional Canal Officer delegate the power to conduct an inquiry or hear parties under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Does a Divisional Canal Officer have the inherent power to review an order made without jurisdiction under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Is an order passed under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, without fulfilling conditions precedent (inquiry and hearing), considered an order without jurisdiction?
- Can an order made without jurisdiction under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, be challenged in a Civil Court despite statutory finality clauses?
- What is the relationship between an interim order under Section 68-A and a final settlement under Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Shamas-Ud-Din vs Province of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Shaman And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
- Shakil Hassan Rashi vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 449 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shakil Hassan Rashdi vs The State1992 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shakeel And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-26Read full judgment →
- Shahid Iqbal And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Alias Raja vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
- Shahalam vs Matloob Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 587 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan and 3 others1992 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Rasool vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary1992 PTD 889 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Rasool vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R 1992 Tax & Custom 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmad and others vs Shakeela Begum and others1992 MLD 744 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shafiq Ahmad vs Khurshid Ahmad1992 CLC 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-21Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain, And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Shafique And Another vs Abdul Hamid And Another1992 P Cr. L J 229 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal and transfer applications involving a dispute over a consignment of agricultural pesticide medicines. The first petitioner dispatched goods which were received by the respondent, leading to criminal cases and civil suits between the parties. The parties had previously referred their disputes to arbitration, resulting in an award and subsequent agreements under which the respondent executed a pronote and made partial payments. Thereafter, the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which the petitioners sought to quash. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent abuse of court processes. The court held that where a dispute is fundamentally of a civil nature and criminal proceedings are initiated as a counterblast or pressure tactic to achieve an improper end rather than to vindicate rights, it constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal complaint against the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is of a civil nature?
- Whether initiating criminal proceedings as a counterblast to exert pressure constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Does acting upon an arbitration award and executing a pronote preclude a party from subsequently sustaining criminal complaints on the same settled subject matter?
- Sh. Muhammad Saleem vs Messrs Obey Rai Cooperative Sports Ltd. and 4 others1992 CLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
- Sh. Jan Muhammad vs Mst. Rabia Begum and 7 others1992 CLC 78 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arose from concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and lower Appellate Court directing the ejectment of the appellant-occupant from a non-residential shop on the ground of bona fide personal use by the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether a second appeal is competent in pending proceedings under the amended Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the omission to frame an issue on the relationship of landlord and tenant vitiated the proceedings where such relationship was admitted in the written statement and supported by evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a right of further appeal conferred or restored during the currency of litigation applies to pending proceedings unless expressly excluded, but dismissed the appeal on merits, finding that the appellant had unequivocally admitted the tenancy and was estopped from denying title, and that the finding of personal need was a pure question of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence. The key principle laid down is that while substantive rights of appeal existing at the institution of a lis are preserved, a newly conferred or restored right of appeal applies to pending proceedings unless the statute dictates otherwise, and a tenant who admits the tenancy in pleadings cannot subsequently defeat eviction by a belated denial of title.
Questions settled- Whether a right of second appeal conferred or restored during the currency of litigation is available to the parties in pending proceedings?
- Does the omission to frame a specific issue on the relationship of landlord and tenant vitiate ejectment proceedings where the tenancy is admitted in the written statement?
- Can a tenant who has acknowledged the landlord and deposited rent be permitted to subsequently deny the landlord's title in rent proceedings?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a premises by the lower courts susceptible to review in a second appeal?
- Sh. Asghar Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. Amjad Ali vs Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others1992 CLC 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
- Service Industry Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore .K.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 21 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Sarwar and 3 others vs Muhammad Saeeduddin Khan alias Saadatuddin1992 CLC 2323 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Sarja vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Alias Sarwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 555 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Sardar Wjhammad vs S.H.O., Police Station Kot Nainan, Tehsil1992 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs Conciliation Court/Onion Council and another1992 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-24Read full judgment →
- Sara Palmer vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sami Ullah And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
- Samar Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
- Saleem Akhtar vs Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh1992 CLC 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the validity of rent deposits made by tenants under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners, tenants of respondent No. 1, were ordered by the Rent Controller to deposit rent pursuant to Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. While the petitioners deposited the rent in the treasury, they failed to specify the name of the landlord in the challan forms. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petitions, but the Additional District Judge, on appeal, struck off the petitioners' defence and ordered eviction, citing the failure to properly tender rent. The core legal question was whether a deposit of rent without specifying the landlord's name constitutes a valid compliance with the statutory requirement. The Lahore High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that such an omission is a material defect, rendering the deposit an unlawful tender. The Court further clarified that the landlord's subsequent withdrawal of the deposited rent does not constitute a waiver of the right to seek the striking off of the tenant's defence. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to mention the landlord's name in the challan form when depositing rent constitute a valid tender of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the withdrawal of rent by a landlord from the treasury amount to a waiver of the right to seek the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- Is the omission to specify the landlord's name in a rent deposit challan considered a deliberate defect?
- Salamat vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- Saifullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2589 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Saif Ul Islam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1444 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- SaIDaN Gul SHaH vs Sardar MUMTaZ aLI KHaN and others1992 CLC 1796 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
- Said Jamal and others vs Ghulam Zohra and others1992 CLC 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby an application for the deletion and recasting of an issue and shifting the burden of proof in a declaratory suit was allowed. The core legal question involved was whether the onus to prove the validity of a disputed Will lies upon the plaintiff challenging it or upon the defendants claiming rights under it as beneficiaries. The Lahore High Court dismissed the constitutional petition in limine, holding that since the defendants claimed rights under the disputed Will and its execution was denied by the plaintiff, the burden of proof was rightly placed upon the defendants to establish its valid execution. The key principle laid down is that the beneficiary of a disputed Will who relies upon it must establish its valid execution, and a trial court's order recasting issues and shifting the burden accordingly involves no jurisdictional defect warranting interference under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proof to establish the valid execution of a disputed Will lies upon the plaintiff or upon the defendants claiming rights under it?
- Can a trial court delete, recast issues and shift the burden of proof before the recording of evidence in a declaratory suit?
- Does an order of a revisional court upholding the recasting of issues by the trial court suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting constitutional interference?
- Sahibzada Sheheryar Abbasi vs Samia Abbasi and another1992 MLD 159 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Safdar Munir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1757 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs Mammi1992 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Saee And Other vs Zulfiqar Ali And Other1992 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
- Sadio Al vs Taj Din And Other1992 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four civil revision petitions concerning land sale transactions challenged by the vendor on the grounds of violating paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1959). The core legal question was whether Civil Courts or Revenue Authorities, acting under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate whether these sales contravened the Regulation. The High Court held that the determination of such violations falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Land Commission or the Chief Land Commissioner. The Court emphasized that the Land Reforms Regulation and the Land Revenue Act create distinct legal entities and powers; Revenue Officers cannot exercise authority under the Regulation without specific delegation. Consequently, the Court declared the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the lower courts, which had purported to decide the validity of the sales under the Regulation, to be without lawful authority. The principle established is that jurisdiction to enforce the Land Reforms Regulation is reserved solely for the designated Land Commission hierarchy, and cannot be conflated with general revenue powers.
Questions settled- Does a Revenue Officer acting under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 have the jurisdiction to determine if a land sale violates paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
- Are the powers exercised by Revenue Officers under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 distinct and separate?
- Which authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a land transaction violates the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
- Sabir Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Russie M. Dinshaw vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
- Salehon and others vs Sardara1992 CLC 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- Russie M. Dinshaw vs Government of Pakistan And 4 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 172) · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
- Rupali Polyester Limited vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development and 2 others1992 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the imposition of export tax by the Zila Council, Lahore, on goods in transit. The petitioners, industrial entities, import raw materials and machinery through the Dry Port, Lahore, which are then transported to their manufacturing plants in District Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the Zila Council could levy export tax on goods merely passing through its jurisdiction while in transit. The Court held that the goods, being in transit and not intended for use or consumption within the Lahore district, did not constitute an 'export' under the relevant statutory framework. Consequently, the Zila Council lacked the authority to impose export tax on such transit goods. The Court clarified that the reliance by the respondents on the Punjab Zila Council Export Tax Rules, 1990, was misconceived, as the mere physical presence of goods within the district limits for a short duration does not trigger tax liability where no actual export occurs. The petitions were accepted, affirming that transit goods are exempt from such local taxation.
Questions settled- Can a Zila Council levy export tax on goods that are merely in transit through its district?
- Does the presence of goods within a district for less than 24 hours justify the imposition of export tax under the Punjab Zila Council Export Tax Rules, 1990?
- What constitutes an 'export' of goods for the purpose of taxation by a Zila Council under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Riaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
- Riaz Mahmood Butt alias Towna vs The State1992 MLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Ijaz Ahmad and others1992 CLC 1583 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Ghulam Ahmad1992 PLD Lahore 156 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Director(C)(R&G)/Deputy Settlement Commissioner,1992 CLC 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-03Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali and 9 others vs Rahim Bakhsh and others1992 CLC 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The respondent-plaintiff claimed the appellant's vendor had entered into an agreement to sell the land to him, while the appellant contended the agreement was forged and that he was a bona fide purchaser. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding the agreement unproven, but the first appellate court reversed this, decreeing the suit. In this appeal, the High Court examined whether the first appellate court's finding on the genuineness of the agreement was sustainable under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the first appellate court's finding was based on a misreading of evidence, particularly ignoring the discrepancy between the plaintiff's oral testimony regarding the purchase of stamp paper and the documentary evidence itself. Emphasizing that documentary evidence often outweighs oral testimony, the Court restored the trial court's finding that the agreement was not proved. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and dismissed the suit, establishing that appellate findings must be supported by logical reasoning and evidence on record.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a finding of fact by the first appellate court be interfered with in a regular second appeal?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a sale deed executed during the period between the dismissal of a suit and its subsequent restoration?
- Can a court in a second appeal set aside an appellate finding that is based on a misreading of evidence or ignores material documentary contradictions?
- Residents of Chak R. Tehsil Shujabad Versus Haji Abdul Ghafoor And Other Residents of Chak R. Tehsil Shujabad vs Haji Abdul Ghafoor And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan and others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and others1992 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs Mst. Allah Wasai And Another1992 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
- Raz Ahmad And 7 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a petition for pre-arrest bail arising from a case registered under sections 295-A, 295-C, and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning alleged misuse of Islamic epithets and defiling the name of the Holy Prophet by printing certain invitation cards. The core legal questions involved whether the bar under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidates the entire F.I.R., whether the offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that while bail was rightly granted to certain petitioners due to lack of incriminating material or applicability of statutory exceptions for women, the remaining petitioners charged under sections 295-C and 298-C were not entitled to bail given the prima facie gravity of the accusations. The court laid down the principle that the bar to cognizance under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not affect the initial registration of an F.I.R. by a private person, and that the unauthorized use of Islamic symbols and Darood by non-Muslim groups constitutes prima facie offenses under sections 295-C and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against court cognizance invalidate the registration of an F.I.R. by a private person?
- Whether the use of Islamic symbols and expressions by Qadianis constitutes an offense under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does sending Darood on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad amount to an offense punishable under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether an offense under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rashid Ahmad vs WAPDA And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 204) · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-03Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Arif vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 567(2) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-24Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Ramzan And 47 Other vs Zila Council, Attock And Another1992 PLD LAHORE 324 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by persons engaged in the carriage of sand and concrete, challenging the imposition of export tax by Zila Council Attock at the enhanced rate of Re.1 per quintal instead of the originally proposed rate of 0/50 paisa per quintal. The core legal question was whether a local council could enhance a proposed tax rate without issuing a fresh public notice and inviting objections under the applicable taxation rules. The Lahore High Court held that while local councils may modify tax proposals, any enhancement of the tax rate requires following the prescribed procedure anew by issuing a fresh notice and granting the public an opportunity to object. The Court ruled that failure to do so violates the mandatory procedural requirements of the taxation rules. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the notification imposing the export tax at the enhanced rate was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can a local council enhance a proposed tax rate without issuing a fresh public notice and inviting objections under the Punjab Local Council (Taxation) Rules, 1980?
- Does the power of a local council to modify a taxation proposal include the unconditioned right to enhance tax rates without following the statutory procedure anew?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 barred by the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision when the legality of the tax imposition itself is challenged?
- Raja Amjad Ali Kiani vs The Punjab Local Council Election1992 CLC 1185 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
- Raja Abdur Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 584 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Raja Aamir Nasim Khan vs Secretary Establishment Division EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Raj Muhammad And Another vs Ata Muhammad And Another1992 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
- Rai Mazhar Iqbal and anothers vs The University of the Punjab, Lahore1992 CLC 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by private M.Sc. Mathematics students challenging a notification issued by the University of the Punjab. The impugned notification prescribed separate examinations and different syllabi for private candidates compared to regular students, despite both groups seeking the same degree. The petitioners contended that the decision was discriminatory, unreasonable, and mala fide, especially since a similar previous notification had been withdrawn by the University before the High Court. The High Court examined the University of Punjab Act 1973 and observed that while the University possesses wide discretion to prescribe courses and conduct examinations, such administrative discretion must be structured and exercised fairly, rationally, and reasonably. The Court held that there was no rational basis for prescribing different standards and syllabi for private and regular candidates when the degree awarded is identical. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, declaring the impugned notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can a university prescribe different syllabi and separate examinations for private and regular candidates when both are to be awarded the exact same degree?
- How must statutory bodies structure and exercise wide discretionary powers conferred upon them by law?
- Is an administrative decision that lacks a rational basis and treats similarly situated candidates differently sustainable under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Rahim Bakhsh and 2 others vs Allah Jiwaya and others1992 CLC 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges an appellate court order remanding a pre-emption suit back to the trial court for retrial on specific issues concerning the market value and price of the suit property, while affirming findings on other issues. The core legal questions involved whether the first appeal against the remand order was competent under Order 43 Rule 1(u) and whether the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence to hold that a registered exchange deed was a disguised sale meant to defeat pre-emption rights. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal against the remand order was competent under Order 41 Rule 23-A read with Order 43 Rule 1(u), but found that the lower courts misread and mismanaged the evidence, relying on conjectures and surmises. The Court established that a pre-emptor must prove by cogent, reliable evidence that a transaction ostensibly an exchange is in reality a sale, and that written documents executed with free consent are entitled to great respect. The appeal was accepted and the pre-emption suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order of remand passed by an appellate court which disposes of the appeal finally while sending the case back for decision on specific issues is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a pre-emptor successfully challenge a registered exchange deed as a disguised sale without producing cogent and reliable evidence regarding the payment of consideration?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the true nature of a transaction can be set aside if based on misreading, non-reading of evidence, conjectures, and surmises?
- What are the foundational principles governing the nature of a pre-emption right as a right of substitution rather than re-purchase?
- Raheem Bakhsh and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1992 CLC 290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
- Rafique Ahmad Awan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 579 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Qudrat Ullah and 4 others vs Government of West Pakistan through Collector, Lyallpur and 4 others1992 CLC 680 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Commissioner, Multan Division, for the establishment of a Grid Station. The core legal question was whether the acquisition proceedings remained valid despite a decade-long delay between the issuance of the initial notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the subsequent notification under Section 6 of the same Act, particularly in light of government instructions and procedural rules requiring timely progression. The petitioners contended that the failure to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Act within one year rendered the proceedings ineffective. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the failure to comply with the mandatory timeline for issuing the Section 5 notification. Relying on the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, the Court affirmed that where a notification under Section 5 is not issued within the prescribed period, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have concluded. Consequently, the impugned notifications were declared null and void, and the petitions were allowed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 within one year of the Section 4 notification render acquisition proceedings void?
- Are the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 applicable to pending land acquisition proceedings?
- What is the legal consequence when the Board of Revenue fails to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 within the extended time period?
- Qayyum Iqbal vs Ahmad Khan Chaddhar S.H.O., Faisalabad And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
- Qasim Ali and others vs Allah Din1992 CLC 902 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-07Read full judgment →
- Qari Abdul Aziz Jalali vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
- Qari Abdul Aziz Jalali vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 442 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
- Qaim Din vs Muhammad Suleman And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1710 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Punjab Province vs Muhammad Shafi and others1992 CLC 2034 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Punjab Industrial Development Board vs United Sugar Mills Limited(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 22) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Province of Punjab, through Collector, Faisalabad and 8 others vs Muhammad Yaqoob1992 CLC 2065 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged an appellate court order that partially vacated a temporary injunction restraining government officials from requiring 'No-Objection Certificates' (NOCs) as a condition precedent for registering property deeds. The core legal question was whether government functionaries, such as the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, possess the legal authority to issue administrative instructions mandating NOCs from municipal or excise departments for the registration of deeds, absent specific statutory backing. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned instructions were issued without lawful authority, as the officials failed to demonstrate any statutory basis for imposing such conditions on the registration process. The Court emphasized that public functionaries must act strictly within the scope of their defined legal powers. It further observed that while civil courts exercise ordinary jurisdiction over such administrative acts, the modern development of public interest litigation allows superior courts to scrutinize such instructions even when challenged by non-aggrieved parties, advising officials to refrain from issuing directives lacking clear legal sanction.
Questions settled- Can government functionaries impose conditions for the registration of property deeds that are not supported by statutory law?
- Does the Registration Act, 1908 authorize a Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to mandate the production of a 'No-Objection Certificate' as a prerequisite for deed registration?
- Can administrative instructions issued by government officials be challenged in civil courts for lacking lawful authority?
- Province of Punjab, Lahore and another vs Shah Rasool and 3 others1992 CLC 67 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Regular First Appeals filed by the Province of Punjab and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission challenging an award by the Senior Civil Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, which enhanced compensation for acquired land. The core legal questions were whether the Commission had locus standi to appeal, whether the Province/Collector had such a right, and whether the Reference Court’s proceedings were void due to the failure to serve notice on the Collector under Section 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that while the Commission lacks locus standi to appeal, the Province/Collector possesses such a right. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the failure to issue notice to the Collector, a necessary party, rendered the proceedings void. Additionally, the Court condemned the Reference Court's arbitrary procedure of using evidence from other cases without consolidation. The key principle laid down is that the Collector is a necessary party in land acquisition references, and failure to notify them vitiates the proceedings, necessitating a remand for a fresh, lawful determination of the matter.
Questions settled- Does a beneficiary company have the locus standi to file an appeal against an award passed by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Is the Collector a necessary party in proceedings before a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Does the failure of a Reference Court to serve notice on the Collector under Section 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, render the proceedings void?
- Can a Reference Court rely on evidence recorded in other cases without a formal order of consolidation?
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Jamil,1992 PLD LAHORE 300 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Malik Altaf Ahmed And OtherK-L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab And Other vs Saif Ur Rehman1992 PLD Lahore 355 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The StateK. L. R. 1992 Civil Cases 409 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
- Pir Bakhsh vs RAHIN'bakh.SH And Other1992 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Piao Khan vs Usman and others1992 CLC 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Phullan (deceased) through his Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad1992 CLC 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition calls in question the validity of an order passed by the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, which restored an initial land grant in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The disputed land was originally surrendered under Martial Law Regulation 64 and later allotted to the respondents under paragraph 18 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972. These initial allotment orders attained finality, but upon subsequent complaints, the Deputy Land Commissioner deputed an Assistant Land Commissioner to conduct an inquiry, subsequently recording a note of assent without independent application of mind or affording a hearing. Appeals and revisions by the respondents failed before land authorities until the Federal Land Commission set aside those orders as void. The Lahore High Court held that the Deputy Land Commissioner acted without lawful authority by delegating inquiry functions and failing to apply an independent mind, rendering his order a nullity in law. Consequently, subsequent appellate and revisional orders built upon that void order were also nullities, against which no limitation period could run. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by an administrative functionary without independent application of mind and merely concurring with a subordinate's report is legally sustainable?
- Can a statutory authority legally delegate its inquiring functions to another officer in the absence of an express statutory provision?
- Does the principle of limitation run against an order that is void ab initio or coram non judice?
- Whether subsequent appellate and revisional orders built upon a void initial administrative order can be maintained?
- Peter Erastos and others vs The State1992 MLD 193 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Peter Erastos And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 423 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Aziz vs WAPDA Etc.(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service 44) · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →