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. 232594 judgments in total.
- INAMULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2762(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- INAMULLAH KHAN vs DIRECTORGENERAL, PAKISTAN FOREST INSTITUTE, PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- INAMUL HAQ vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN1985 PLC 558 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- In re: SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF1985 MLD 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-14Read full judgment →
- In re: Mst. TAHIRA KHATOON vs NOT1985 CLC 2735 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
- In re: Messrs AIZAD BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES Ltd vs NOT1985 MLD 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
- In Re: KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD vs NOT1985 PLC (C.S.) 13 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
- In re: HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL JOSEPH CORDOIRO vs NOT1985 CLC 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- In re: DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI vs Not1985 CLC 718 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- In Re; Synthetic Chemicals Co. Ltd. Karachi vs Members And Creditors Of The CompanyPTCL 1985 (CL.) 307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
- In re _ THE PAKISTAN ARMED FORCES NURSING SERVICES ACT, 1952, ETC. vs NOT1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 365 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- In re : SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS Co. LTD. KARACHI vs NOT1985 PLD Karachi 193 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 166 of the Companies Act 1913 by Synthetic Chemicals Company Limited seeking its winding-up on the grounds of a special resolution, suspension of business, loss of substratum, and just and equitable circumstances. The company had incurred massive, continuous losses under both private and subsequent public management under the Economic Reforms Order 1972, resulting in liabilities far exceeding its assets. Opposing creditors argued that the company had ceased to exist as a corporate entity upon government takeover and that Martial Law Regulation 125 barred winding-up. The High Court of Sindh held that the takeover of management under the Economic Reforms Order 1972 did not vest entire ownership in the state or dissolve the corporate entity, as the government only acquired 58% of the shares. Furthermore, the court ruled that there was no implied repeal of the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act 1913 by Martial Law Regulation 125. Finding that the company's substratum was entirely gone due to insolvency and obsolete technology, the Court ordered the winding-up of the company.
Questions settled- Does the takeover of management of a company by the Federal Government under the Economic Reforms Order 1972 extinguish its status as a corporate body under the Companies Act 1913?
- Under what circumstances is the substratum of a company deemed to be gone for the purposes of a winding-up order?
- Can the doctrine of implied repeal be inferred where a subsequent special law or regulation does not expressly conflict with the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act 1913?
- In re _ ISLAMIZATION OF LAWS vs NOT1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 193 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- In re : ISLAMISATION OF LAWS vs NOT1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 344 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- In re : INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS- ORDINANCE (XXIII of 1969) AND OTHERS vs NOT1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 305 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
- In re : INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT OF MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES1985 PTD 896 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-22Read full judgment →
- In re : ESTATE OF LATE QUAID-E-AZAM MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH vs NOT1985 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 143 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 803 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- IMDAD HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA1985 PLC (C.S.) 1030 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- IMDAD HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1385 P Cr. L J 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- ILLAHI BUX vs The ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 3 others1985 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- ILLAHI BAKHSH SAMR00 And Others vs REGISTRAR, SOCIETIES And Other1985 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Constitution petition regarding the election of the President of respondent No. 2 Institution on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The first petitioner's nomination paper had been rejected due to delayed receipt of consent, leading to the unopposed election of respondent No. 3. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a Constitution petition filed in the nature of a writ of quo warranto can be dismissed by the High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the plea regarding the nature of the petition as a writ of quo warranto and its jurisdictional implications deserves consideration. The Court ordered that the appeal be heard on the existing record and extended the interim order previously passed.
Questions settled- Can a Constitution petition filed in the nature of a writ of quo warranto be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction?
- Whether the rejection of a nomination paper due to delayed consent warrants interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- ILAM DIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2776 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Other1985 SCMR 1604 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners, Ilam Din and Mst. Meraj Begum, challenging a judgment of the High Court dated 11-6-1978, which dismissed their Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A. No. 310 of 1978) in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its determination regarding the petitioners' alleged superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the matter was concluded by a finding of fact. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners' counsel failed to demonstrate that the High Court had misread or ignored any material evidence on the record concerning the issue in question. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the lower court misread or ignored material evidence.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact in a pre-emption case if the High Court has not misread or ignored material evidence?
- Is a finding of fact by the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal conclusive if no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
- ILAM DIN AND ANOTHER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1985 PLC 645 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ILAM DIN and another vs ABDUL MAJID and 2 others1985 CLC 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- ILAHI BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs Mst. BILQEES BEGUM1985 PLD Supreme Court 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the trial court decreed the suit on payment of Rs. 2,000,000 as the market value/sale price, whereas the suit was originally valued notionally at Rs. 4,560.30 for jurisdictional purposes under the rules framed under Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887. The appellants directly challenged the decree in the High Court, but the High Court returned the appeal for presentation before the District Judge, holding that jurisdictional suit value determines appellate forum. The Supreme Court considered whether the forum of appeal under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 is determined by the original jurisdictional value fixed under the Suits Valuation Act 1887 or by the market value/decree price. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, declaring that under Section 18 of the Ordinance, the original jurisdictional value fixed by statute regulates both the forum of the suit and the forum of appeal, regardless of the ultimate decree amount or actual market value.
Questions settled- Is the forum of appeal under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 determined by the original jurisdictional value fixed under the Suits Valuation Act 1887 or by the market value of the land?
- Does the decree amount in a pre-emption suit alter the jurisdictional value for determining the proper appellate court?
- Does the notionally fixed jurisdictional value in a suit for pre-emption of agricultural land regulate both the suit forum and the appeal forum?
- ILAHI BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs Mst. BALQEES BEGUM1985 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- IKRAMUDDIN SYED and 3 others vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 29 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 407 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
- IKRAM-UL-HAQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C. S) 909 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- IKRAM ILAHI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and another1985 MLD 152(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- IKRAM And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 379, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who allegedly chased, caught hold of, and grappled with the deceased while a co-accused fired the fatal shot, are entitled to bail in view of the application of vicarious liability under section 34. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and without caprice in finding that section 34 was prima facie attracted to the facts, thereby disentitling the petitioners to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons actively facilitate the commission of an offense by chasing and grappling with the victim, common intention is prima facie established, justifying the refusal of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who catches hold of a deceased during an assault is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Do the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply where co-accused facilitate a fatal shooting by grappling with the victim?
- Did the High Court exercise its discretion properly in refusing bail based on the specific allegations in the F.I.R.?
- IKHTIAR-UL-HASAN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE1985 PLC 326 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- IJAZ HUSSAIN JAFFARY vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION, GURAT and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1082 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2469(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD BUTT vs HABIB BANK LIMITED and another1985 PLC 27 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD ABBASI vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 821 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
- IHSANUL HAQ PIRACHA And Others vs WASIM SAJJAD And Other1985 SCMR 1553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Two applications were filed under Order XX, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 seeking interim suspension of the Election Tribunal's order declaring the appellants' election to the Senate as technocrats void under the Senate (Election) Act, 1975. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of qualifications for a technocrat under Section 5(1)(c) explanation (b) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, specifically regarding professional competence and recognition. The Supreme Court held that the appeals presented an arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured the appellants, as allowing re-elections to proceed during the pendency of the appeal would cause unnecessary expenditure and waste if the appeals succeeded. Consequently, the Court suspended the impugned order of the Tribunal to stay the re-election process, while maintaining the status quo regarding the non-notification of the election and administration of oath.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will suspend the operation of an Election Tribunal's order declaring a Senate election void pending the disposal of the appeal?
- What constitutes a technocrat based on professional competence and experience under the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977?
- Does the balance of convenience favour staying fresh re-elections when an elected candidate challenges an adverse decision by an Election Tribunal?
- IHSAN UR REHMAN vs Mst. NAJMA PARVEEN1985 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the custody of minor children between Ihsan-ur-Rehman and Mst. Najma Parveen. The Guardian Judge granted custody to the father, which was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge. The mother filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was entertained based on the precedent of Parveen v. Muhammad Ashar, holding that the revision was competent. Although the High Court agreed that the father was entitled to custody, it granted visitation rights to the mother during summer vacations and Eid holidays. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a revision petition against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge was competent in guardianship proceedings, given earlier Supreme Court pronouncements disapproving the relied-upon precedent. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the incompetence of the revision prima facie had force based on its prior ruling in Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay, and accordingly granted leave to appeal while suspending the operation of the impugned High Court order.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition lies to the High Court against an appellate order passed under the Guardian and Wards Act?
- Does a precedent holding revisions competent survive subsequent disapproval by the Supreme Court?
- IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, MULTAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Hussain And 4 Other vs Tax Recovery Officer, Multan And AnotherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 465 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR alias NANNA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2719 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMED And Others vs THE STATE And 5 Other1985 SCMR 992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder trial under section 302 and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 148 and 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court had convicted certain accused persons while acquitting others, leading to appeals and a revision petition before the High Court, which resulted in the acquittal of some co-accused and the confirmation of the death sentence of the petitioner Iftikhar Ahmed. Before the Supreme Court, contentions were raised regarding conflicts between ocular testimony and medical evidence concerning specific injuries, challenges to weapon recoveries, and non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent witnesses. The core legal question involved the reappraisal of evidence in a criminal case involving previous enmity and interested witnesses. The Supreme Court held that a reappraisal of the evidence was necessary in the interest of safe dispensation of criminal justice and accordingly granted leave to appeal in both petitions.
Questions settled- Whether reappraisal of evidence is warranted when ocular testimony allegedly conflicts with medical evidence in a murder case?
- Does the non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding independent recovery witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the prosecution case?
- Whether previous enmity between parties necessitates heightened caution and corroboration of interested witness testimony?
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1985 MLD 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- IFTEKHAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1820 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
- IEZED EXPORT AND IMPORT COMPANY vs BAHADUR YAR JUNG ACADEMY, KARACHI1985 MLD 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- IDREES KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1824 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-11Read full judgment →
- IDREES K H AN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2717(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-28Read full judgment →
- IDREES AHMAD AND OTHERS vs Hafiz FIDA AHMAD KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses three civil appeals and two civil petitions concerning the competency of a second appeal under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which was repealed by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the repeal of the 1959 Ordinance destroyed the right of a second appeal to the High Court in proceedings that were pending at the time of the repeal. The Supreme Court held that the right to a second appeal in such pending cases remained intact and undisturbed, as section 27(2) of the repealing Ordinance expressly saved pending appeals and cases fixed for arguments or judgment to be disposed of in accordance with the former Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that a vested right of appeal under a repealed enactment survives repeal unless the repealing statute explicitly or by necessary implication takes it away, and that saving clauses for pending proceedings preserve the graded appellate remedies previously available.
Questions settled- Whether a second appeal is competent from the judgment of the Appellate Authority in a first appeal filed under the repealed Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- What is the effect of the repeal of a statute on the accrued right of appeal under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- Do the saving provisions in section 27 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, preserve the right of second appeal for pending proceedings?
- IBRAHIMBHAI ADAMALI JIVEJI and 3 others vs FAKHRUDDIN SALEHBHOY TAPAL1985 CLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs HAYAT GUL And Other1985 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court order granting bail to the respondent in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether an accused who has absconded for a significant period is entitled to bail merely because co-accused persons were acquitted in his absence, and whether such abscondence can be disregarded under the guise of 'further inquiry'. The Supreme Court held that long abscondence is a relevant factor that cannot be ignored simply due to the acquittal of co-accused. The Court clarified that while rare exceptions exist (e.g., women, children, infirm persons, or cases under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898), abscondence generally weighs against the grant of bail. Furthermore, the Court held that the 'further inquiry' provision under Section 497(2) requires a specific judicial finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offense; without this prerequisite finding, bail cannot be granted on that basis. The bail order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons automatically entitle an absconding accused to bail?
- Is long abscondence an irrelevant factor in bail proceedings if the co-accused have been acquitted?
- What is the prerequisite finding required for a court to grant bail under the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be released on bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe they committed the offense?
- IBRAHIM KHAN and another vs FATEH MUHAMMAD1985 MLD 300 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM And Others vs THE MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings concerning landholdings in village Daukey, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. The petitioners' consolidation scheme was confirmed in June 1965. Subsequently, in February 1967, the Collector, purporting to act under section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, set aside the scheme and remanded the case. Multiple rounds of proceedings, remands, appeals, and revisions followed, culminating in orders by revenue authorities and the dismissal of the petitioners' constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question raised is whether an order passed directly by a Collector under section 13(2) without reporting the case to the Commissioner under subsection (3) is ultra vires and a nullity in law, thereby rendering all subsequent proceedings void. The Supreme Court held that the contention requires further consideration and granted leave to appeal, while ordering status quo regarding possession.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a Collector directly modifying or reversing a consolidation scheme under section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, without reporting the case to the Commissioner under subsection (3), is ultra vires and a nullity in law?
- Do subsequent proceedings and orders stemming from an initial void order of a Collector also become void and of no legal effect?
- IBRAHIM And Others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_ COLLECTOR, VEHARI And Other1985 SCMR 1774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal challenging a High Court order that dismissed writ petitions related to settlement matters, and subsequently dismissed the petitioners' Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs). The core legal questions were whether an Intra-Court Appeal was maintainable against the High Court's order in these settlement proceedings and whether the delay in filing the petitions for leave to appeal could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the Intra-Court Appeals were not maintainable, affirming the High Court's view, based on the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitions were time-barred by 843 days. The Court established the principle that pursuing a wrong remedy in a wrong forum does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the law of limitation. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions due to the lack of maintainability of the ICAs and the unexplained, significant delay in filing the petitions.
Questions settled- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition in settlement matters under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Does pursuing a wrong remedy in a wrong forum constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- IBRA HIM KHAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 996 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- IBADAT YAR KHAN And Others vs ATAUL HAQ And Other1985 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment proceeding instituted in 1966 by the respondents against the petitioner tenants. In 1967, the Rent Controller directed the tenants to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent pursuant to section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959). The tenants failed to comply and challenged the deposit order years later in writ proceedings, arguing that the order was illegal because it included rent for a period exceeding three years prior to the institution of the ejectment application. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the belated challenge after seventeen years could not be entertained in constitutional jurisdiction. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that while there is no absolute rule barring a new ground in writ jurisdiction, the court has discretion based on the circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that the initial deposit order was consistent with the prevailing interpretation of law at the time it was made, and the tenants failed to raise the objection at earlier appellate stages or explain their failure to deposit even the future rent. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party be permitted to raise a new ground of challenge for the first time in constitutional writ jurisdiction after a lapse of several years?
- Does the inclusion of time-barred arrears of rent in a deposit order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 render the entire order a nullity incapable of enforcement?
- Is a tenant liable to have their defence struck out for non-compliance with a rent deposit order that was validly made under the prevailing judicial interpretation at the time?
- I.S.G.A. Ltd. vs Mrs. RIFT FAKHIR1985 CLC 364 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI, vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 785 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
- HYESONS ELECTRIC CO. LTD. and 2 others vs GENERAL SECRETARY, HYESONS1985 PLC 419 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another vs KARAM KHAN SHORO1985 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired for the Hyderabad Water Supply Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs. 20,000 per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 1,08,900 per acre by the Additional District Judge and subsequently reduced to Rs. 70,000 per acre by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the compensation awarded exceeded the statutory limits prescribed under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the market value assessment was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the restrictive provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act, which limit compensation to the amount claimed, are contingent upon the valid service of notice under Section 9. As the appellants failed to establish that the requisite notice was served upon the landowner, the claimant was not precluded from seeking enhanced compensation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court’s valuation of Rs. 70,000 per acre, noting that the land's potential and proximity to developing housing societies justified the assessment. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the limitation on compensation under Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply if the statutory notice under Section 9 was not served?
- Can a court award compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the landowner if the landowner omitted to file a claim due to lack of notice?
- Is the potential future use of land a valid factor in determining its market value for compensation purposes?
- Hussaini Kutib Ali Shah, Additional Member, Board of Revenue MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev. 116 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-04-07Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN BUX vs MIR MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption regarding agricultural land, where the appellant sought to enforce his right of pre-emption based on vicinage. The core legal question was whether the failure to explicitly mention the first demand (Talab-e-Mawasibat) during the performance of the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) rendered the pre-emption claim invalid. The trial court had dismissed the suit, relying on established case law that deemed such an omission fatal. Upon review, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The court held that the requirement to expressly refer to the first demand during the second demand is not a mandatory rule derived from the Hadith or primary Islamic legal sources, but rather a procedural suggestion by later commentators. Consequently, the court established the principle that the omission to mention the first demand during the second demand is not fatal to a substantive right of pre-emption, as the second demand serves primarily as a notice of the claimant's intention to exercise their right.
Questions settled- Is the explicit mention of the first demand (Talab-e-Mawasibat) during the performance of the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) a mandatory requirement for a valid pre-emption claim?
- Does the omission of a reference to the first demand during the performance of the second demand render a pre-emption claim void?
- Is the requirement to mention the first demand during the second demand supported by the Hadith or primary sources of Islamic law?
- HUSSAIN and 6 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN ALI SHAH vs Pir Agha MUHAMMAD HASSAN JANPLD 1985 Rev. 124 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-10-06Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN ALI CHANDIO vs THE SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD And Other1985 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the cancellation of agricultural land allotments in District Sanghar, which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had invalidated, alleging the underlying transfer order was a forged document. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision, which had overturned the Commissioner's finding of forgery. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could lawfully interfere with a finding of fact by a subordinate tribunal, particularly when new evidence was introduced, and whether the tribunal's finding was sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court is competent to interfere with findings of fact by subordinate tribunals if such findings are based on "no evidence" or a "complete misreading of the evidence." The Court determined that the Commissioner’s conclusion of forgery was based on mere surmises rather than tangible evidence. The key principle laid down is that while the High Court generally does not substitute its own findings for those of a tribunal, it retains the authority to set aside findings of fact that lack evidentiary support or result from a misreading of the record.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a subordinate tribunal in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a finding of fact based on mere surmises without tangible evidence constitute a valid basis for a tribunal's decision?
- Is the High Court permitted to set aside a tribunal's order if the finding is based on a complete misreading of the evidence?
- HUSSAIN ALI CHANDIO vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD And Other1985 SCMR 1730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his removal from service. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager Personnel by the Board of Trustees, Karachi Port Trust, and later removed from service by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan, under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The petitioner challenged the removal, contending that the Tribunal's finding on limitation was erroneous and that his removal violated the provisions of the Ordinance as there was no evidence that the competent authority considered whether the removal was in the public interest, noting that the Tribunal improperly supplied its own grounds for the removal. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised legal questions of general importance, allowed the petition, and granted leave to appeal subject to exceptions as to limitation.
Questions settled- Whether the removal of an employee under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 requires the competent authority to be satisfied that the removal is in the public interest?
- Can the Service Tribunal supply new grounds to support an order of removal that were not part of the original order or record?
- Whether the petition for leave to appeal was barred by limitation under the circumstances of receipt of the Tribunal's judgment?
- HUSSAIN AHMAD ISLAHI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 4 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 349 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- HUMAYUN KHAN vs CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, AIR PORT SECURITY, PESHAWAR1985 PLC (C.S.) 1011 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- HUMA ENTERPRISES and 3 others vs S.PIR ALI SHAH and others1985 CLC 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was filed by a partnership firm and its partners seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the cancellation of a dealership agreement by National Motors Limited. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the suit for specific performance-like relief and the status of the partnership following the termination of the dealership. The court held that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable, as the dealership agreement was not specifically enforceable; the appropriate remedy for unlawful termination would have been a claim for damages. Furthermore, the court determined that the partnership, having been constituted solely to operate the dealership, stood dissolved upon the termination of that dealership. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' late-stage application to amend the plaint to include a claim for damages, noting the excessive delay of eleven years and the prior dismissal of an injunction application which had put the plaintiffs on notice regarding the necessity of seeking damages. The judgment affirms that specific performance is not an available remedy for the termination of such commercial dealership agreements.
Questions settled- Is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction maintainable to challenge the termination of a dealership agreement?
- Does a partnership firm formed for a specific business purpose dissolve upon the cessation of that purpose?
- Can an application for amendment of the plaint be allowed after the conclusion of arguments and significant delay?
- HOTEL METROPOLE Ltd. vs KITABISTAN Ltd. And Another1985 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an execution proceeding regarding an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The respondent's application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed in default, leading to the appellant obtaining possession of the premises. The respondent subsequently obtained a stay order and an order for restoration of possession from the executing Court, which the High Court upheld. The core legal question was whether the executing Court could order the restoration of possession when the underlying application for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order had been dismissed in default, and whether a stay order could be granted in the absence of a pending lis. The Supreme Court held that the executing Court lacked the competence to grant a stay order on the date possession was taken because the respondent's application had already been dismissed, leaving no pending lis. Consequently, the Court set aside the order directing the restoration of possession, while allowing the proceedings to set aside the ex parte ejectment order to continue. The key principle is that a court cannot grant a stay order in the absence of a pending legal proceeding.
Questions settled- Can an executing court grant a stay order when no application or lis is pending before it?
- Does an executing court have the authority to order the restoration of possession if the application to set aside an ex parte ejectment order was previously dismissed in default?
- Is a stay order effective if it is granted after the execution of the decree has already been completed?
- HOTCHAND vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2318 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
- HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL And Another vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another1985 SC M R593 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arise from a common judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the constitution petitions filed by the Holy Family Hospital and the Liaqat National Hospital. The appellants, charitable institutions registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and operated on a non-profit basis, challenged notices requiring them to pay education cess under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether charitable hospitals run on a non-profit basis fall within the definition of 'establishment' under section 2(b) of the Ordinance so as to be liable for the levy of education cess under section 3. The Supreme Court held that the term 'establishment' encompasses any premises where workers are employed for carrying on any service, regardless of whether the institution is run for profit or gain. The Court emphasized that welfare and beneficial legislation must be given a wide and liberal interpretation to advance the legislative intent of providing education to workers' children. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the High Court's judgment upholding the levy of the education cess was affirmed.
Questions settled- Does a charitable hospital run on a non-profit basis fall within the definition of 'establishment' under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
- Is the levy of education cess under section 3 of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 contingent upon the establishment being run for profit or gain?
- How should welfare and beneficial legislation like the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 be interpreted regarding the term 'establishment'?
- HISSAM UD DIN vs Mst. FAIZAN And 7 Other1985 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the application for setting aside the abatement caused by the death of Mahmood Ali and for bringing on record his legal representatives. The core legal question concerns whether the assumption that the petitioner resided in the same premises and was thus aware of the co-occupant's death justified dismissing the application as abated, despite a death certificate showing the death occurred in a different locality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assumption and conclusion were not supportable under these circumstances, rendering it a fit case for granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that factual assumptions regarding a party's knowledge of a co-party's death must be tested against documentary evidence such as death certificates indicating different places of residence before denying relief against abatement.
Questions settled- Whether an application for setting aside abatement can be dismissed on the assumption of shared residence when evidence indicates a different place of death?
- Is a case where lower appellate assumptions regarding knowledge of a party's death are unsupported by evidence a fit case for grant of leave to appeal?
- HILTON INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE vs JAFFAR HUSSAIN1985 PLC 635 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- HILTON INTERNATIONAL COMPANY vs AVARI HOTEL Ltd.1985 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a decision of the Sind High Court's Appeal Bench, which modified an ad interim order issued under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in a civil suit concerning the management and accounts of a hotel. The dispute arose from the plaintiff-respondent's unilateral rescission of a management agreement with the petitioner-lessee, alleging mismanagement and seeking a permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The High Court's Single Judge had initially stayed proceedings for arbitration under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and imposed conditions on the petitioner's management, which the Appeal Bench further modified. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, consolidating it with a related appeal under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution. The Court modified the ad interim relief, allowing the petitioner to manage the hotel according to the agreement, subject to conditions: no remittances outside Pakistan, counter-signature required only for cheques exceeding Rs. 2 lacs, cash retention limit of Rs. 50,000, maintenance of employee status quo, and open access to accounts. The proceedings in the suit were stayed pending the decision of the appeals.
Questions settled- Under what conditions can an ad interim injunction be modified by an appellate court in a dispute over business management?
- Can a court grant leave to appeal and consolidate it with another appeal arising from the same order but concerning a separate matter?
- What factors are considered by the Supreme Court when modifying ad interim relief concerning the management of a business venture pending the outcome of a suit and arbitration?
- Is it permissible for a court to stay proceedings in a civil suit pending the decision of appeals related to interim orders and arbitration references?
- What specific conditions may be imposed on a party managing a business under an ad interim order to safeguard the interests of the other party, particularly regarding financial transactions and access to accounts?
- HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB vs Mirza MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2857 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- Highland Manufacturers (Pak) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (West), KarachiPTCL 1985 (CL.) 233 · Sindh and Balochistan High Court · 1972-01-11Read full judgment →
- HIDAYATULLAH vs PROJECT INCHARGE, GULF CONSTURCTION COMPANY1985 PLC 179 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- HIDAYATULLAH vs GULF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Ltd.1985 PLC 526 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another1985 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a revision petition and set aside an appellate court's order in a canal drainage dispute. The core legal question concerned the validity of a Divisional Canal Officer's order sanctioning a watercourse through the appellant's land, specifically whether the landowner was duly served and whether his grandson's consent to the watercourse was legally binding on him. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to establish that the High Court's findings—based on proper service of notice, the circumstances of representation, and admissions made in the original plaint acknowledging agreement to the watercourse—were erroneous or misread the record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that a landowner is bound by the consent given during canal proceedings where subsequent conduct and pleadings demonstrate acquiescence.
Questions settled- Whether a landowner is bound by the consent given by a family member in canal drainage proceedings when supported by subsequent conduct and pleadings?
- Can an appellate court's finding based on a reading of record be interfered with when the appellant fails to bring the relevant documents on the paper-book?
- HIDAYAT ALI And Another vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1985 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the transfer of Property No. 405-406, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, which was originally allotted to the respondents' predecessor. The appellants, who occupied portions of the property, contested the transfer, leading to protracted litigation regarding whether the property was divisible or indivisible. Following various administrative orders and a remand by the High Court, the Settlement Commissioner ultimately declared the property indivisible and transferred it entirely to the respondents. The appellants challenged this in the Supreme Court, questioning the justification for transferring the entire property to the respondents when they had only applied for a portion. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties reached a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise, which allocated specific portions of the property to the appellants and the remainder to the respondents, with directions for the exchange of possession and payment of transfer prices. The Court disposed of the appeal in terms of this settlement, directing the Settlement Department to implement the agreement and issue the necessary transfer orders accordingly.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise agreement reached between the parties during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Is a property transfer order by a Settlement Commissioner subject to judicial review regarding the divisibility of the property?
- Does a compromise agreement between parties regarding property allocation supersede previous administrative orders of the Settlement Department?
- HAZUR BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 869 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- HAYAT vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of heroin from his person inside his private residence by an Excise Sub-Inspector. The core legal question was whether the search and subsequent recovery, conducted within a private house rather than a public place, rendered the proceedings illegal and entitled the applicant to bail. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, an offence under Article 4 is only cognizable if committed in a public place. Consequently, the search of the applicant's person within his private house was deemed illegal. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that this illegality entitled the applicant to the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that a search and recovery conducted in violation of the statutory requirement that an offence under Article 4 must occur in a public place to be cognizable vitiates the legality of the recovery, thereby providing sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Is an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable if committed in a private house?
- Does an illegal search and recovery of narcotics from a private residence entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- HAYAT vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 1927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dated 29-4-1985, which had cancelled his bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioner had failed to surrender to the authorities following the cancellation of his bail. The Court held that a petition for leave to appeal cannot be heard or entertained while the petitioner remains a fugitive from justice and has not surrendered. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-surrender, while clarifying that the petitioner retains the liberty to file a fresh petition for leave to appeal once he has surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court. The principle established is that a petitioner seeking relief from the Supreme Court against the cancellation of bail must first surrender to custody before their petition can be heard.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be heard if the petitioner has not surrendered after bail cancellation?
- Is a petitioner required to surrender to custody before seeking leave to appeal against a bail cancellation order?
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD And 4 Others vs ELECTION AUTHORITY And Other1985 SCMR 1909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves five petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petitions in an election matter. The core legal question concerns the power of the Election Authority under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to order a fresh poll, and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief. The Supreme Court held that while the counsel for the petitioners was technically correct that the Election Authority had no power to order a fresh poll based on prior interpretation, the petitioners were not entitled to equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution or discretionary relief of leave to appeal from this Court because they had consented to the re-poll before the Authority and participated in it upon defeat. The key principle laid down is that a party who consents to an order and participates in subsequent proceedings without immediate objection is disentitled to discretionary and equitable constitutional relief.
Questions settled- Whether the Election Authority has the power to order a fresh poll under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a petitioner who consented to a re-poll before the Election Authority entitled to equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Will this Court grant discretionary relief of leave to appeal to a party who participated in a re-poll and was defeated after consenting to it?
- HAYAT ALI vs SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT (ADMINISTRATION DIVISION)1985 PLC 26 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Havaldar ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Mst. SHAMA BEGUM @ SHAMA PARVEEN1985 CLC 2251 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- Hav. MUHAMMAD AKBAR And Others vs ADALAT KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the transfer of rural plots in village Barki Badhal, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who were in occupation of the plots since before 1961, were entitled to automatic transfer of the property under the relevant settlement scheme, despite subsequent transfers of the same plots to the petitioners in 1971. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the plots, being rural sites occupied by the respondents prior to the cutoff date, stood automatically transferred to them by operation of law. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments, including the contention that one respondent was a minor at the relevant time, holding that the applicable scheme did not disqualify minors from claiming entitlement based on occupation. The Court concluded that the High Court correctly applied the law regarding the deemed transfer of rural sites, finding no merit in the petitions and dismissing them accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a settlement scheme for the transfer of rural sites disqualify a minor from claiming entitlement based on occupation?
- Are rural plots occupied prior to the relevant cutoff date deemed transferred by operation of law?
- Does the law governing the transfer of rural sites distinguish between local occupants and displaced persons?
- HASSAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- HASSAN SHAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG and 3 others1985 MLD 510 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- HASSAN RAZA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 65 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- HASSAN MAHMOOD and others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and others1985 CLC 2665 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a miscellaneous application filed by the Deputy Attorney-General seeking the vacation of interim relief orders granted in various writ petitions. The core legal question was whether such interim relief, granted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, could persist beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed by Article 2-A of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977. Additionally, the Court addressed whether an assurance of status quo given by a functionary, which conflicted with express statutory provisions, could be maintained. The Court held that the six-month restriction on interim orders is mandatory and cannot be extended once the full span has been utilized. Furthermore, the Court ruled that no commitment or assurance running counter to an express provision of law can be maintained, as there is no estoppel against the law. Consequently, the Court vacated the interim relief and the status quo assurances, emphasizing that statutory functionaries must be permitted to discharge their duties in accordance with the law and that courts must not perpetuate illegality.
Questions settled- Does the six-month limitation period for interim orders under Article 2-A of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 apply to all interim relief granted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can an assurance of status quo given by a statutory functionary be maintained if it contradicts an express provision of law?
- Does the doctrine of estoppel apply to commitments or assurances that run counter to express statutory provisions?
- HASSAN IMDAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, LASBELLA1985 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several land acquisition appeals arising from the acquisition of agricultural land in District Lasbella for an industrial estate. The primary legal questions involved the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 versus the Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes) in the Rural Areas Act 1974, the necessity of notice to the beneficiary department under Section 20 of the 1894 Act, and the competency of the forum that adjudicated the compensation claims. The Court held that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 governs the acquisition. Crucially, the Court determined that the proceedings were void ab initio because the officer who adjudicated the compensation, the Sessions Judge-cum-President, Majlis-e-Shoora, lacked the legal status of a District Judge at the time of the adjudication, rendering the orders coram non judice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for a fresh trial before a competent District Judge. The judgment affirms that jurisdictional defects regarding the authority of the adjudicating forum are fatal to the validity of the proceedings, regardless of procedural technicalities.
Questions settled- Does the Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes) in the Rural Areas Act 1974 supersede the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for industrial land acquisition?
- Can an order passed by an officer lacking the legal status of a District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be sustained?
- Does a jurisdictional defect regarding the authority of the adjudicating forum render proceedings coram non judice?
- Is a jurisdictional objection regarding the adjudicating forum maintainable if raised for the first time at the appellate stage?