Latest 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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Haji Nowroz Khan vs Hussain Gul and 13 arms1980 CLC 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Muhammad Khan vs Haji Muhammad Ali Khan and 34 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Malal Khan vs Mir Hassan1980 CLC 1422 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Hakim Khan and Another vs Government of N.W. F. P. and 3 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Bostan vs Sahib Shah Ali and 4 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 262 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
• Haft Sohbat Khan vs Khanimullah1980 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
• Haft Multan Zareen and 56 Others vs Government of N.W. F. P. and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court
  legislative competenceultra viresdevelopment cessfederal legislative listconstitutional petitiontaxation powersprovincial autonomy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the vires of Section 7 of the North-West Frontier Province Finance Act (Act X of 1977), which imposed a 'development cess' on the production of marble chips by manufacturing factories. The petitioners argued that the Provincial Legislature lacked the competence to impose this levy, as it encroached upon the legislative domain of the Federal Parliament. The core legal question was whether the 'development cess' on the manufacture of goods fell within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature or the Federal Parliament under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the impugned section was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. It reasoned that there is no legal distinction between a 'tax' and a 'cess,' and that the levy on the manufacture of goods falls squarely under Item 49 of the Federal Legislative List. Consequently, the Court declared Section 7 of the Act unconstitutional and directed the respondents to cease recovery of the cess, establishing that the substance of a levy, rather than its nomenclature, determines legislative competence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Provincial Legislature have the authority to impose a 'development cess' on the manufacture of goods?
  • Is there a legal distinction between a 'cess' and a 'tax' for the purpose of determining legislative competence?
  • Does the substance of a levy determine its validity regardless of the name given to it by the legislature?
  • Does the levy of a tax on the manufacture of goods fall under the Federal Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman alias Baibur Accused vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 214 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Peshawar vs Messrs Sangeen Khan Abdul Jalil and 41980 PLD Peshawar 248 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulshan Bahar Begum vs Northwest Frontier Province through Chief1980 CLC 904 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawab Khan vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 193 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-03
  murderattempted murderocular evidenceinterested witnessmedical evidence versus ocular evidencecorroborationdelay in FIRenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by Gul Nawab against his conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision petition by the complainant seeking enhancement of the life sentence to death. The core legal issues before the Peshawar High Court concerned whether injured eye-witnesses related to the deceased should be treated as interested witnesses requiring strong corroboration, whether an apparent conflict between medical post-mortem opinion on the time of death and direct ocular evidence discredits the prosecution's case, and whether the trial court correctly awarded life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The High Court held that relationship alone does not render witnesses interested absent a motive to falsely implicate the accused, and that direct, creditworthy ocular testimony from injured witnesses outweighs conflicting medical estimate opinions. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by logistical constraints. Finding the prosecution's evidence robust, the High Court maintained the convictions and sentences, dismissing both the appeal and revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victim render them interested witnesses requiring independent corroboration?
  • Can expert medical opinion on the time of death prevail over credible and consistent ocular account provided by injured eye-witnesses?
  • Does the inadequacy or absence of a clear motive negate direct and trustworthy eye-witness testimony in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and Another vs Abdul Hamid Khan1980 CLC 944 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
• Gual Am Farooq vs Fazal Ghani1980 CLC 1082 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-25
  second appealpersonal bona fide needejectment proceedingsfindings of factstatutory barcontinuation of proceedingsRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the appellant landlord against the respondent tenant seeking eviction from a commercial shop on grounds including personal bona fide need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Although the Rent Controller ordered eviction, the lower appellate court reversed this decision. The landlord contended that divergent findings were delivered by the same appellate court in a parallel ejectment case involving an adjacent shop. The High Court affirmed that under Section 15(4) of the Ordinance read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, findings of fact reached by the first appellate court are final unless shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or flawed by procedural error. Furthermore, holding that an appeal is a continuation of original proceedings, the Court ruled that the landlord's successful acquisition of the adjacent shop during parallel proceedings invoked the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 13(3) of the Ordinance, rendering the instant ejectment application incompetent and infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of fact rendered by the first appellate court be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of misreading of evidence or procedural defect?
  • Does the statutory bar in the proviso to Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 apply to a pending ejectment appeal when the landlord obtains possession of another building in the same urban area via parallel proceedings?
  • Whether an appeal constitutes a continuation of original proceedings for the purpose of applying statutory bars under rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazli Rabbi vs Khanimullah and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
• Fazalur REHMANTenant vs Ghulam Habib and 2 Others Land lords1980 CLC 887 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Noor and Another vs Akhtar Munir/1980 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-14Read full judgment →
• Fazal Halim vs Fateh Muhammad Khan and 4 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
• DR. Raja Manzoor Elahi vs Northwestern Frontier Province through Chief Secretary, Government of N.W. F. P., Peshawar1980 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-01
  civil servantscompulsory retirementjurisdictionconstitutional petitionservice tribunalouster of jurisdictionmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant retired from service by the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province under Section 13(i) of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act 1973, challenged his retirement before the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner contended that the retirement was premature, without jurisdiction, and vitiated by mala fides. The High Court examined whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the petition in light of Article 212 of the Constitution and the establishment of the Service Tribunal under the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act 1974. The Court held that Article 212 of the Constitution explicitly ousts the jurisdiction of all other courts, including the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199, in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. The Court further clarified that even where an order is alleged to be without jurisdiction or mala fide, the appropriate forum for redress is the Service Tribunal and not the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a service matter where a Service Tribunal has been established?
  • Can an order of retirement alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction be challenged directly in the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 override the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner, Dir vs Haji Wali Muhammad Khan1980 CLC 1647 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
• Central Government of Pakistan and Another vs Khoedad Khan and 51980 CLC 1462 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and 5 Others1980 CLC 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman Kiyani vs Administrator (Chairman), Municipal1980 CLC 1088 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan vs Maiz Muhammad Khan and 6 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 227 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-22
  second appealpower of attorneyfraudulent transactiongift deedMuhammadan Lawregistration of documentscross-objectionssubstituted service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Regular Second Appeals arising from a civil suit regarding the ownership of agricultural land. The core legal questions were the validity of a sale deed executed by an attorney based on a power of attorney later declared fraudulent by the issuing Embassy, and the validity of an alleged gift deed by the original owner. The Court held that the power of attorney was a fraudulent, non-binding document, and the subsequent sale transaction was void. Furthermore, the alleged gift deed was found invalid due to the absence of proof regarding the delivery of possession, a mandatory requirement under Muhammadan Law for a valid gift. The Court emphasized that registration of a document does not cure inherent defects like forgery or fraud, and that the presumption of correctness attached to a registered document is rebuttable. Additionally, the Court clarified that an unregistered gift deed, while inadmissible to prove title, may be received in evidence for collateral purposes, such as explaining the nature of possession, provided the requirements of the law are otherwise met.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a document cure the defect of a fraudulent or forged power of attorney?
  • Can an unregistered gift deed be admitted into evidence for collateral purposes?
  • Is a second appeal maintainable under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit was instituted before the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  • Can a respondent file cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without filing a separate appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Gul vs Abdul Hanan and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
• AYUBConvict vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 201 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan and 4 Others Accuseds vs Azam Khan and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1018 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs Station Commander, Nowshera Cantt.1980 CLC 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
• Amroz Khan vs Arbab Mohammad Ghalib1980 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-18
  landlord and tenantevictiontransfer of propertynotice of transferwilful defaultdenial of titlerent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction petition filed by a transferee landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant, who denied the landlord-tenant relationship due to lack of notice of property transfer, can be evicted for such denial, and whether the alleged default in rent payment was wilful. The Rent Controller and the appellate court ordered eviction based on the denial of tenancy. The High Court upheld the finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, as the transfer deed was valid. However, it set aside the eviction order, holding that the tenant’s denial was not a conscious repudiation of the relationship but a result of ignorance regarding the transfer, as the tenant continued paying rent to the original owner. The court established that where a tenant denies the landlord's title due to lack of notice of transfer, and continues to pay rent to the original owner, such denial does not automatically warrant eviction; the matter of wilful default and bona fide requirement for reconstruction must be adjudicated on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's denial of a transferee landlord's title, based on a lack of notice of transfer, constitute a ground for immediate eviction?
  • Is the production of the postman necessary to prove the service of a registered notice when the addressee denies receipt?
  • Can a tenant be held in wilful default of rent if they continued paying the original landlord without knowledge of the property's transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 286 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ajmair vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs Karimi Industries and Others1980 PLD Peshawar 259 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ahad Sher vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-16
  explosive substancespossession of explosivesburden of proofsearch and seizureSection 103 CrPCunlawful objectcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, where the appellant was found in possession of a hand grenade and detonator. The core legal question was whether mere possession of explosive substances suffices for conviction under Section 5, and whether the burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act. The Peshawar High Court held that mere possession is insufficient; the prosecution must establish circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the possession was for an unlawful object. The Court ruled that the presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act only applies if the accused was already charged with a scheduled offence, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Court clarified that while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serves as a safeguard against false implication, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a search if circumstances justify the departure. Consequently, the conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidence of unlawful intent.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of an explosive substance constitute an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 without proof of suspicious circumstances?
  • Does the presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act apply to an accused not previously charged with a scheduled offence?
  • Does non-compliance with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render a search illegal?
  • Is the definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 wide enough to include a grenade without a detonator?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and Another vs Mst. Shaheen Bibi and 2 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 250 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan vs Mst. Ja Mila Begum (Represented by Heirs) and Others1980 CLC 875 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 177 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Mashal Khan1980 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul HAMIDAccused vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-06-18
  murder convictionretracted confessioneyewitness credibilityFIR delayballistic evidencecriminal appealacquittalrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of two women and house trespass. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the First Information Report (FIR), the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the voluntariness of a retracted confession, and the integrity of the weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the document treated as the FIR was not the initial information received by the police, rendering it a mere statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the eyewitness accounts were inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and injury locations. The court also ruled that the confession was involuntary due to the delay in producing the accused before a Magistrate, and the recovery of the weapon was suspicious due to unexplained delays in forensic analysis and the use of test bullets not matching the recovered weapon. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in producing an accused before a Magistrate for a confession render the confession involuntary?
  • Can an FIR recorded after the police have already initiated an investigation be considered a valid First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to produce a recovery witness from the public invalidate the recovery of an incriminating weapon?
  • Is the testimony of eyewitnesses reliable when it contradicts the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zahir Shah Accused1979 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Lal Pasand and 4 Omeits1979 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
• Sherzada Khan vs The Commissioner (F. C. R.), Peshawar and 2 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Alam Khan vs Muhammad Sher Khan and 4 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 2 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
• Shahzullah vs Syed Shahabuddin Amd Anothbr1979 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Gul and 9 Other vs Government of N. W. F. P. and Another1979 PLD Peshawar 224 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad vs Khanpur1979 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-05-01
  pre-emptionrevenue recordsjamabandicolumn of cultivationcolumn of rentadverse possessionpresumption of truthtenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Petition arose from a dispute over a superior right of pre-emption, where the trial and appellate courts differed on the nature of the defendant's possession based on conflicting entries in the Jamabandi (revenue record). The core legal question referred to the Full Bench was whether entries in the column of cultivation must prevail over entries in the column of rent (Lagan) when there is an apparent conflict between them. The Court held that there is no inflexible rule that one column must prevail over the other. Instead, the Court ruled that when entries in the column of cultivation and the column of rent appear to be in conflict, they must be read together to determine the true nature of possession. The Court emphasized that revenue entries are to be interpreted in light of the facts and circumstances of each case, and that such entries are relevant under the law, carrying a presumption of truth unless rebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether entries in the column of cultivation are to prevail over the entries in the column of rent or both are to be read together where there is a conflict between the two entries?
  • Does an entry in the revenue record regarding the nature of possession carry a presumption of truth under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Can entries in the column of rent (Lagan) be considered relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Satar Gul and Another vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone `B', N_ W. F. P., Peshawar and 2 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 252 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State Petitioner1979 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-31
  post-arrest bailacquittal of co-accusedabscondanceindependent trialmurderoutlawappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his bail plea by the Sessions Judge. The primary contention advanced by the petitioner was that his co-accused had been acquitted on the same prosecution evidence, which, according to the petitioner, exonerated him from the murder charge. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial based on the same evidence entitles a absconding co-accused to bail as a matter of right. The Peshawar High Court rejected the application, holding that the trial of the petitioner must be conducted independently of the previous trial. The court emphasized that accepting the petitioner's argument would render the examination of witnesses in his trial a mere formality. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had remained an outlaw for eight years, disentitling him to bail, while directing that his trial be held expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence disbelieved in a trial resulting in the acquittal of co-accused be automatically relied upon to grant bail to an absconding co-accused in a separate trial?
  • Does prolonged abscondance of an accused operate as a ground to refuse bail in a murder case?
  • Whether the trial of a newly arrested absconder must be conducted independently of the earlier trial of his co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Shah vs Muhammad Iqbal Khan and Another1979 PLD Peshawar 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan and 8 Other vs Ghulam Sarwar and 14 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Said Amir1979 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and 2 Other vs Tim State1979 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sanadiand 2 Other vs Abdul Wali Shah1979 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Jan vs Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Abbottabad, Hazara and 6 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-04-02
  constitutional petitionevacuee propertysettlement schemeaggrieved personlocus standialternative remedywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1972, challenging the transfer of an evacuee property in Havelian to respondent No. 5 under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, claimed eligibility for the transfer and alleged fraud and lack of jurisdiction in the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 5, while noting that an appeal regarding the matter was already pending before the settlement authorities. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, having never been in possession of the disputed property and being ineligible for its transfer under the applicable settlement laws, was not an aggrieved person and lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction was inappropriate while an alternative remedy by way of a pending appeal before the competent settlement authority had already been availed of by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who has never been in possession of an evacuee property and is ineligible for its transfer qualifies as an aggrieved person to maintain a constitutional petition?
  • Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court while an appeal concerning the same subject matter is already pending before a competent statutory tribunal?
  • Does a claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir have a vested right to claim a specific rural or extended area property under Settlement Scheme No. VII without prior possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Jan vs Saidan Shah1979 PLD Peshawar 196 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Haji Ahmad1979 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mira Jan vs THF State1979 P Cr. L J 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
• Major-General (R) Nasirullah Khan Babar- Petitioner vs Chief of the Army Staff and Another1979 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-15Read full judgment →
• Khurshid vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 260 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
• Khanzada Mir vs THB State1979 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-20Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman vs This State1979 P Cr. L J 242 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman vs The State1979 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-09-30Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Iqbal Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Saeed Gul vs Mir Alam Khan, S. H. O., Police Station Tal, Kohat1979 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman and Another vs Faqir Muhammad1979 PLD Peshawar 4 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
• Government of N.-W. F. P. through Collector, Mardan vs Sultanud Din1979 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Khan vs The State1979 PLD Peshawar 227 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Alias Khairai vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rahim and 6 Other vs Commissioner, Peshawar Division and Another1979 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-05-13
  land acquisitionpublic purposeconstitutional petitionchange of purposenotificationeminent domain
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Commissioner, Peshawar, to repurpose land originally acquired for a timber market for the construction of a housing colony. The petitioners contended that the acquiring department lacked the authority to change the land's purpose without issuing a fresh notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether the government is legally required to issue a new notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the public purpose for which the land was acquired changes after the initial acquisition process has commenced. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a fresh notification is not a legal necessity when the purpose of acquisition changes. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 does not mandate identity in the specific scheme or purpose for which the public object is carried out. The key principle laid down is that once land is validly acquired for a public purpose, the government may alter the specific utilization of that land without being required to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or issue a new notification.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 required if the government changes the intended public purpose of the acquired land?
  • Does the Land Acquisition Act 1894 require identity in the specific scheme for which land is acquired?
  • Can the government utilize land acquired for one public purpose for a different public purpose without re-notifying the acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator, Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore vs Mst. Najab1979 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 265 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
• Ayub Khan vs Haqdad Khan and 9 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-03-31Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Noorul Basar and 3 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State and Other1979 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Peshawar and 2 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
• A. Hamid vs Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commis Sioner, N. W. F. P.1979 PLD Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-03-07
  constitutional petitiondisplaced personsproperty transferprivate negotiationpublic auctionvoid ab initiowrit jurisdictionsuperintendence powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner declaring the transfer of property to the petitioner as void. The property had been previously auctioned to another party, who subsequently withdrew. The petitioner acquired the property through private negotiation, which the Commissioner later declared a nullity. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the authority to transfer the property via private negotiation after an initial public auction, and whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could administratively set aside that transfer. The Court held that the transfer to the petitioner was void ab initio because the property, having been disposed of by public auction, could not be transferred via private negotiation without proper resumption and re-auction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s powers of superintendence under Section 9(3) of the Displaced Persons (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, did not extend to setting aside judicial decisions. However, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore the petitioner's possession, as doing so would perpetuate an illegal, void transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power to set aside a judicial decision under the guise of general superintendence and control?
  • Can property previously disposed of by public auction be transferred via private negotiation without formal resumption and re-auction?
  • Should a High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore a transfer of property that is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through A.G., N.W. F. P. vs Amanullah and Another1978 PLD Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
• The State through A.-G., N: W. F. P. vs Amanullah and Another1978 PLD Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
• State vs Amanullah and ANOTHERSAccused1978 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
• State vs Amanullah and Another Accused1978 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad Khan and 4 OTHERSCroObjector vs Land Acquisition1978 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad Khan and 4 Othercross-Objectors vs Land Acquisition1978 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Khan, Chief Executive, Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery1978 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →
• Salabuddin Khan, Chief Executive, Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery1978 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →
• Said Umar Shah vs Hasham and Others1978 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
• Rooh Afza vs Muhammad Umar and Others1978 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• Rooh Afza vs Muhammad Umak and Other1978 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad Shah vs Sawab Shah1978 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
• Nook Ahmad Shah vs Sawab Shah1978 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
• Niaz MUHAMMADAccued vs TSB State1978 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs The State1978 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
• Niaz Mohammad Accused vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 614 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
• Musharraf Khan vs The State1978 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
• Musharraf Khan vs THB State1978 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
• Munawar Din vs Gul Zaman1978 P Cr. L J 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan vs Fazal Ahmad1978 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and Others vs Shamroz Khan and Others1978 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and Other vs Shamroz Khan and Other1978 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mt. Nasim Akhtar vs Noor Rehman and 2 Others1978 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →