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.
- HAROON AYOOB ABDUL KARIM vs SULLEMAN AHMAD AND 4 others1983 CLC 162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit instituted in the Sindh High Court involved a claim for an account of a company's branch business and assets situated in Rangoon, Burma, following the partition of India and the subsequent taking over of the parent company in Bombay by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The core legal questions addressed whether a shareholder can maintain a direct suit for accounts against company directors in the absence of a fiduciary or contractual relationship, the effect of a foreign company's cessation or dissolution on its branch offices, the survival of actions against legal representatives of a deceased accounting party, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court over foreign immovable properties and assets. The court held that directors owe fiduciary duties to the company rather than individual shareholders, that a foreign company's branch may be wound up as an unregistered company but does not automatically render directors personally accountable to individual members for an account, that legal representatives cannot be compelled to render accounts in the technical sense, and that the court lacks jurisdiction to issue effective orders in personam concerning foreign properties and assets nationalized by a foreign government. The suit was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether directors of a company owe a fiduciary or contractual relationship to individual shareholders so as to render them liable to a direct suit for rendition of accounts?
- Does the dissolution or taking over of a parent company by the Custodian automatically close its foreign branch office and create a common property among shareholders?
- Can legal representatives of a deceased defendant be called upon to render accounts in the technical sense in a suit for accounts?
- Does a civil court in Pakistan possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for accounts and pass an effective decree concerning business assets and immovable properties situated entirely outside Pakistan and nationalized by a foreign government?
- HARI KISHAN DASS vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1983 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses 18 consolidated constitutional petitions filed by employees of WAPDA whose services were terminated under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were workmen entitled to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or civil servants who should have approached the Service Tribunal, and whether constitutional petitions were competent against termination orders passed under section 17(1-A). The Balochistan High Court held that pursuant to section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, WAPDA employees are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts. However, because section 17(1-A) confers arbitrary and unchallengeable authority upon the Authority to terminate service without assigning reasons, orders passed thereunder are not justiciable before the Service Tribunal either. Furthermore, the petitions were held to be barred by laches. The key principle laid down is that WAPDA employees are deemed civil servants under section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, but where termination is executed under the summary powers of section 17(1-A), neither the Labour Court nor the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to interfere.
Questions settled- Whether WAPDA employees are deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain grievances of WAPDA employees under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can an order of termination passed by WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, be challenged before the Service Tribunal?
- Are constitutional petitions barred when an alternate remedy before the Service Tribunal exists?
- HAQ NAWAZ AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 682 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-29Read full judgment →
- HAQ NA WAZ vs THE STATE.1983 P Cr. L J 287 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- HANIF vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1973 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- HANIF GUL vs SARWAR KHAN1983 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a pre-emption suit regarding land comprised in multiple Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor seeking to pre-empt a block of land comprising different Khasra numbers must own property contiguous to every single Khasra number, or whether contiguity to any part of the compact block suffices. The Supreme Court held that the sale of a parcel of land comprising more than one Khasra number does not constitute multiple properties, but a single property represented by that parcel; thus, if the pre-emptor's property is contiguous to any part of the compact block, they are entitled to pre-empt the entire land irrespective of whether the Khasras are in the same or different Khatas. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the District Judge's decree.
Questions settled- Does the sale of a parcel of land comprised in more than one Khasra imply the sale of as many properties as there are field numbers?
- Is a pre-emptor required to have property contiguous to all Khasra numbers in a block of land to pre-empt the sale?
- Does land situated in different Khatas constitute separate properties for the purpose of pre-emption when forming a compact block?
- HANIF AKHTAR RANJA AND 2 Other vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE Of JAMMU AND KASHMIR1983 PLC (C. S.) 932 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- HAMZO AND Another vs THE STATE--.Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 892 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences imposed by the Sessions Court for murder and destruction of evidence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony from interested, inimical witnesses, the validity of recoveries made by police, and the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions recorded after a delay. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that eye-witnesses who are closely related and inimical to the accused require independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court established that identification in darkness via torchlight provides only a momentary glimpse, rendering it unreliable. Additionally, the Court found the recoveries suspicious due to inconsistencies in arrest times and the nature of the evidence. Finally, the Court held that judicial confessions recorded after an unexplained delay of three days, and subsequently retracted, are unreliable. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants and rejected the reference for confirmation of the death sentences.
Questions settled- Can judicial confessions recorded after an unexplained delay of three days be relied upon for conviction?
- Is the testimony of closely related and inimical eye-witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the identification of accused persons in the dark by torchlight constitute reliable evidence?
- Can one piece of tainted evidence corroborate another piece of tainted evidence in a criminal trial?
- HAMIDULLAH KHAN AND 4 Other vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SARGODHA1983 PLC (C. S.) 971 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- HAMIDA BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- Hamid Chaudhry, Member MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 741 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-28Read full judgment →
- Hamid Chaudhry, Member Mian KHIZAR HAYAT vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1983 PLC (C. S.) 292 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- HAMID ASGHAR TAIR vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)1983 CLC 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
- HAMID ALI KHAN vs PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 3 OTH8R51983 PLC 231 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- HAMEED AKHTAR vs The STATE1983 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court affirming the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was charged with murder and causing hurt, with the specific allegation of firing a shotgun hitting the deceased in the belly, leading to fatal injuries. The petitioner argued that bail should be granted based on disputed facts and alternative versions of the occurrence. The High Court rejected these contentions, noting that the plea of two versions had been found false during police investigation. The Supreme Court reviewed the orders of the lower courts and held that the matters raised had been properly evaluated by both courts below. Finding no legal error, infirmity, or improper exercise of judicial discretion in refusing bail at this preliminary stage where evidence appreciation is required, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent orders refusing bail where judicial discretion has been properly exercised?
- Can disputed questions of fact requiring detailed appreciation of evidence be resolved at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of an alternative version of the event that was found false during investigation?
- HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (WAQF) vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, KARACHI1983 PLC 124 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- HAMDARD (TRUST) EMPLOYEES' UNION vs HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (WAQF)1983 PLC 1160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- HAMAYAT KHAN AND Another vs AHMED DIN AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the sale of land, where the original plaintiff, Rehmat Ali, filed a suit for declaration alleging he had not sold the property in question. Following Rehmat Ali's death during the suit's pendency, the trial court permitted the impleadment of his legal representatives. The petitioners challenged this order through a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere with the lower court's decision via a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional District Judge acted within his jurisdiction and that his decision had attained finality. The Court emphasized that constitutional petitions should not be used as a mechanism to seek the reappraisal of evidence or to challenge decisions of competent courts on frivolous grounds, particularly when the relevant law does not envisage such a review.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be used to challenge a decision of a competent court on the grounds of reappraisal of evidence?
- Is a decision of an Additional District Judge regarding the impleadment of legal representatives subject to interference via a writ petition when the court acted within its jurisdiction?
- HAKIMULLAH vs THE STATE1983 PTD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- HAKIM KHAN AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by two convicts, Abdur Razzaq and Hakim Khan, against their convictions and sentences for the murder of Ghulam Sarwar and his son, Muhammad Asif. The appellants were originally convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with Abdur Razzaq receiving a death sentence and Hakim Khan receiving life imprisonment. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the death sentence imposed on Abdur Razzaq was justified, given that both appellants shared responsibility for the injuries and the incident was not premeditated but arose from a sudden dispute over poisoned hens. The Court held that because the incident was not preplanned and Hakim Khan had received a lesser penalty for his role, the death sentence for Abdur Razzaq was disproportionate. Consequently, the Court converted Abdur Razzaq's death sentence to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that sentencing should reflect the specific circumstances and the shared nature of the criminal act.
Questions settled- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the crime was not preplanned and the co-accused received a lesser sentence?
- Does the absence of a distinction between the roles of two assailants in a joint attack justify the mitigation of a death sentence?
- HAKIM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANNU AND 8 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 44 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI AND Others HAKIM ALI AND Others vs FAZAL DIN AND Ownss1983 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- Hajiani ZULEKHA BAI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- Haji ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- Haji ZAKARIA vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ1983 C LC 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Haji UMER DIN vs ABDUL SAMAD1983 CLC 2234 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-11Read full judgment →
- Haji SALEEH MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs Haji JUMMA KHAN AGHA AND 4 Other1983 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave addresses the jurisdictional limits of the Assistant Commissioner under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, particularly regarding whether village Ahmadoon fell within the excluded area of 'Ziarat' under the Second Schedule. The core legal question involved the interpretation of territorial descriptions in the Schedule and whether subsequent executive re-delimitation of revenue boundaries under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 could alter the territorial operation of a special statute without express legislative authority. The Supreme Court held that the word 'Ziarat' in the Second Schedule referred strictly to the town of Ziarat as it existed at the time of the Ordinance's commencement in 1968, and subsequent creation of a larger Sub-Tehsil in 1974 did not extend the statutory exclusion to village Ahmadoon by executive action. The Court laid down that the territorial operation of an enactment cannot be altered or expanded by executive administrative re-delimitation of revenue units unless the statute explicitly delegates such power, as territorial exclusion requires fixity and definiteness.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent executive re-delimitation of revenue boundaries automatically extend or restrict the territorial operation of a statute?
- Are the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandatory or permissive when multiple persons share a common cause of action?
- Can a party raise a totally new factual and legal ground in a review petition that was never urged during the hearing of the main constitutional petition?
- What is the proper interpretation of the term 'Ziarat' as specified in the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
- Haji RUSTAM KHAN (THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) vs DILBAR KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court order dismissing a revision petition in a pre-emption matter. The appellant, a vendee under a consent decree, argued that the underlying alienation was void under the Kabul River Project (Control and Prevention of Speculation in Land) Act, 1948, and thus could not support a pre-emption claim. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor or the original vendee can challenge the validity of a sale transaction on the basis of statutory prohibitions to defeat a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a pre-emptor stands substituted for the vendee and cannot challenge the validity of the transaction they seek to pre-empt. The Court affirmed that in pre-emption suits, the court is not required to test the sale's validity against external statutory bars, provided the parties intended the transaction to operate as a sale. The defect in the vendee's title does not invalidate the pre-emption claim, as the pre-emptor takes the title as it exists, subject to any existing legal challenges.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emptor challenge the validity of the sale transaction they seek to pre-empt?
- Does a defect in the vendee's title invalidate a claim for pre-emption?
- Is a court in a pre-emption suit required to test the validity of the sale against external statutory prohibitions?
- Does the right of pre-emption constitute a right of substitution or a right of repurchase?
- Haji NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- Haji NAWAB DIN vs STATE AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 44 · Board of Revenue · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs ABDUL AZIZ KHAN AND 5 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 188 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD vs HAJI HABIB AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court, which remanded a property dispute to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh hearing. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to clarify the scope of property transfers after a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) has been issued. The petitioner argued that the authorities became functus officio upon the issuance of the PTD. The Supreme Court, relying on the principle established in Anwar Hussain v. Sarfraz Ahmad (PLD 1971 SC 669), held that while Settlement Authorities generally become functus officio after the issuance of a PTD, they remain competent to clarify the exact portions of properties transferred, particularly when the property serves a dual purpose or when ambiguity exists regarding the scope of the transfer. The Court endorsed the High Court's decision to remand the matter for such clarification, finding no merit in the petition. The key principle laid down is that Settlement Authorities possess the residual jurisdiction to clarify the extent of property transfers even post-PTD issuance to resolve disputes regarding specific portions of the transferred premises.
Questions settled- Do Settlement Authorities become functus officio regarding property transfers immediately upon the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Can Settlement Authorities clarify the scope of property transfers after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued?
- Is a dispute regarding the transfer of a roof or courtyard subject to clarification by Settlement Authorities after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR vs DR. ZAFARULLAH1983 CLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIK vs PIR BUX AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1949 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs Mian ASAD HAKIM AND Other1983 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for review of a judgment dated 14 December 1982 was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner sought to re-argue points that had already been decided by the Court and requested that a cautionary note be recorded to prevent prejudice regarding a decision after remand on specific issues (Issues Nos. 5 and 5-A) in relation to the decision on Issue No. 4. The Supreme Court held that no justification was presented to warrant a re-hearing of the case. The Court declined to grant the requested cautionary note, observing that the petitioner would not suffer any real prejudice, subject to the extent that the decision on Issue No. 4 had gone against him and its necessary consequences. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition as lacking merit, reaffirming the principle that a review petition cannot be used as a platform to re-argue points already decided by the court.
Questions settled- Can a party seek a review of a judgment solely to re-argue points that have already been decided by the Supreme Court?
- Will the Supreme Court record a cautionary note to prevent prejudice on remand if it reduces the effect of a decided issue?
- Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs RENT CONTROLLER1983 CLC 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD QASIM vs MEHRBAN ALI1983 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The tenant resisted the application, contending that the landlord's practice of accepting rent in lump sum for two or three months at a time established a modified mode of payment, thereby precluding a finding of willful default. The Rent Controller and the District Judge ordered eviction, but the High Court reversed this on second appeal, holding that the landlord's conduct had altered the terms of the tenancy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and restored the eviction order. The Court held that a landlord's acceptance of delayed or periodic payments of rent does not establish a legally binding practice that alters the statutory requirement to pay rent by the fifteenth of each month. Such acceptance merely condones past defaults and does not entitle the tenant to plead their own negligence or claim discretionary relief in cases of habitual default.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's practice of accepting rent periodically in lump sums alter the statutory timeline for payment of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a tenant plead a practice of delayed rent payments to escape the consequences of willful default?
- Does the acceptance of accumulated rent by a landlord constitute a permanent variation of the terms of a lease agreement?
- Haji MUHAMMAD DTN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 4 OTHERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MIRPUR1983 CLC 631 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD AYUB vs Syed BUZARAG SHAH AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant-landlord's ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant. The petition was filed on grounds including reconstruction and personal need. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings of fact could be disturbed in second appeal due to misreading of evidence and erroneous application of law, whether a sanction for reconstruction must precede the filing of an ejectment petition, and whether pleas of reconstruction and personal need are mutually destructive. The Peshawar High Court held that concurrent findings based on misreading of evidence or erroneous legal propositions are not immune from interference in second appeal, that the relevant law does not require reconstruction sanction to be obtained prior to instituting the petition, and that personal need and reconstruction are not mutually destructive. The court established the key principles that a landlord has the sole prerogative to select properties for personal occupation and that the lack of the word 'already' in rent restriction statutes means post-filing acquisition of municipal sanction for reconstruction is legally sufficient.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the first appellate court be disturbed in a second appeal?
- Are the grounds of personal need and reconstruction mutually destructive in an ejectment petition?
- Must the necessary sanction for reconstruction from the municipal authority be obtained prior to the filing of an ejectment petition?
- Does a landlord possess the exclusive prerogative to select which property to occupy for personal use?
- Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM & Co. vs CONTROLLING AUTHORITY/DEPUTY1983 CLC 3343 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD AQIL vs FAZULLAH alias FAZUL MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
- KHIOMAL vs JAMIATMAL1983 CLC 2666 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ALI (REPRESENTED BY 10 HEIRS) vs YAR MUHAMMAD AND 31983 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- Haji MIR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-03-23Read full judgment →
- Haji Malik BANARAS KHAN vs N.W. F. P. THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT N.W. F. P.,HOME DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Malik BANARAS KHAN vs N.W. F. P. THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT N.W. F. P., HOME DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- Haji MAHMOOD AND Another vs The STATE1983SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court in a murder case registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang. The petitioners, Haji Mahmood and Waqar Ahmad, were accused along with seven others of the murder of one Amir. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. Upon hearing the arguments from both the petitioners' counsel and the Advocate-General, Punjab, the Court distinguished the cases of the two petitioners. The Court found no sufficient grounds to release the first petitioner, Haji Mahmood, on bail and consequently dismissed his petition. However, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail to the second petitioner, Waqar Ahmad. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed in respect of Waqar Ahmad, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail adjudication in criminal matters involves a distinct assessment of the individual circumstances and evidence pertaining to each accused person.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to one co-accused while refusing it to another in the same murder case?
- Is the grant of bail in a murder case subject to the individual assessment of the accused's circumstances?
- Haji KABIR PASHA vs YOUSAF SHAREEF1983 CLC 2199 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
- Haji JEHANZEB vs KHALID KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Malakand, which was subsequently dismissed as time-barred and incompetent by the District Judge because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree sheet. The petitioner challenged this appellate dismissal before the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed without a decree sheet, which was admitted to regular hearing due to the negligence of the court office in failing to point out the defect, should be dismissed or whether the delay in supplying the decree sheet should be condoned. The High Court held that while the requirement to file a copy of the decree under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory, where the court office is equally negligent in scrutinizing the appeal at the initial stage and admits it, the litigant should be protected against the default of court officials. The Peshawar High Court set aside the appellate court's dismissal, condoned the delay, and remanded the matter for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree sheet is incompetent?
- Can the delay in filing a copy of the decree sheet be condoned when the court office was negligent in checking the appeal at the initial stage?
- Does a litigant deserve protection against default committed by court officers in failing to point out defects in an appeal memorandum?
- Haji HAFIZ ALI vs NOOK MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 204 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM YASEEN vs CHAIRMAN, CANTONMENT BOARD, GUJRANWALA1983 CLC 3131 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-05Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD (THROUGH His LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) vs MIAN1983 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a leave to appeal granted to examine whether a valid gift of agricultural land under a subsisting usufructuary mortgage could be made, particularly without notice to the mortgagee. The predecessor-in-interest of the parties had gifted agricultural land to his two sons by a registered deed, subsequently attempted to revoke the gift, and then filed a suit claiming the gift was invalid, procured by fraud, and lacked delivery of possession. The trial court decreed the suit, but subsequent appellate and bench proceedings involved conflicting findings regarding revocation and the necessity of notice or physical possession. The Supreme Court held that property under a usufructuary mortgage, representing an equity of redemption, can be the valid subject-matter of a gift. The Court established that a formal notice to the mortgagee is not an absolute legal requirement or a sine qua non for such a gift to be complete, provided the donor takes all reasonably permissible steps to divest themselves of the property. Furthermore, since the gift was perfected through a registered deed by a father to his sons within prohibited degrees, it was irrevocable.
Questions settled- Can a valid gift be made of agricultural land that is under a subsisting usufructuary mortgage?
- Is a notice to the mortgagee a mandatory legal requirement for a valid gift of an equity of redemption?
- Whether a gift made by a father to his sons within prohibited degrees can be revoked after being perfected?
- Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJABAND Other1983 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal arising from a suit for damages. The core legal question involved the determination of findings of fact regarding alleged damage to the petitioner's house caused by an abandoned well, known as a bouli. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification to re-open the case on a concurrent finding of fact where the petitioner failed to satisfy the normal standard for obtaining such a finding, and accordingly dismissed the petition. However, taking note of the potential for future damage, the Court recorded the respondents' undertaking that the concerned authority would take necessary measures to ensure the bouli does not cause damage or nuisance to the petitioner and local residents. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact concurrently reached by lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent sufficient justification, while public authorities remain responsible for maintaining public property to prevent nuisance or damage.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a suit for damages?
- What is the responsibility of the concerned authority regarding an abandoned well causing potential damage to residents?
- HAJI CHAKAR vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PANO AKIL AND 21983 PLD Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Haji BASHIR AHMAD KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 333 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-01-05Read full judgment →
- Haji BAGH ALI AND OTHERS vs WAPDA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 88 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
- Haji AYUB vs Mst. BACHAI AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 114 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- HAJI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 198 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- Haji AMIR AND 5 OTHERS vs N.W. F. PROVINCE THROUGH DEPUTY1983 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH DITTO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1614 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- Haji AHMAD SHER KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL ETC.S1983 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an election dispute regarding the election of a Member of the Town Committee, Noorpur Thal. The petitioner challenged the High Court's judgment, which had partially upheld an Election Tribunal's decision declaring the petitioner's election void. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court erred in upholding findings of corrupt practices against the petitioner despite a lack of specific allegations or evidence of collusion with polling staff, and whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to reverse a finding previously decided in the petitioner's favor in the absence of a valid cross-objection. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's findings on issues regarding the alleged corrupt practices and the delimitation of electoral boundaries required further consideration. The Court suspended the operation of the orders passed by the Election Tribunal and the High Court pending the final adjudication of the appeal, thereby establishing that findings in writ jurisdiction require proper procedural adherence and evidentiary support.
Questions settled- Can a High Court reverse a finding in favor of a petitioner in a writ petition without a proper cross-objection?
- Does an allegation of polling irregularities constitute a corrupt practice by a candidate without evidence of collusion?
- Is a specific allegation of corrupt practice required under the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules 1979 to invalidate an election?
- Haji AHMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 106 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL REHMAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE--Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 2443 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL RAZZAK vs Haji ABDUL KARIM VAYANI AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 2118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL QADIR MOTIWALA vs SAIFUDDIN AHMED1983 CLC 3006 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL QADIR MOTIWALA vs SAIFUDDIN AHMAD1983 SCMR 1088 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner regarding the first floor of a property in Nazimabad, Karachi. The eviction was originally sought on grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent's personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on personal requirement, a decision affirmed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the respondent had previously vacated the ground floor of the same premises after inducting the petitioner as a tenant on the first floor. The petitioner contended that this prior vacation triggered the application of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which restricts eviction if a landlord has vacated a similar building without sufficient cause. The Supreme Court found that the points raised regarding the applicability of this statutory provision and the respondent's admission of prior residence required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent's prior vacation of the ground floor barred the current eviction claim.
Questions settled- Does the prior vacation of a portion of a building by a landlord without sufficient cause bar an eviction claim based on personal need under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Whether the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 are attracted when a landlord has previously vacated a part of the same premises?
- Haji ABDUL KARIM vs SADAT ALI AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL JALIL vs JAVID AHMAD1983 SCMR 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller passed an ex parte eviction order against the tenant on 2-11-1976. On the very same day, the appellate court (District Judge) admitted the tenant's appeal and issued an order staying the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The High Court set aside the eviction order, holding that a stay order takes effect from the time it is passed rather than when it is communicated. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether a stay order passed on the same day as an eviction order invalidates the latter when both orders bear the same date and there is no evidence establishing which order was passed earlier in time. The Supreme Court held that while a stay order operates from the moment it is passed, the burden of proving that the stay order was issued prior in time on the same day rests upon the party asserting its priority. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the stay order preceded the eviction order, the eviction order remains valid. The appeal was allowed and the ex parte eviction order restored.
Questions settled- Does a stay order take effect from the time it is passed or from the time it is communicated to the trial court?
- When a stay order and an eviction order are passed on the same day, on whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that the stay order was passed prior in time?
- Can an ex parte order passed on the same day as a stay order be rendered invalid without evidence showing the stay order preceded it?
- Haji ABDUL AZIZ-Appelllant vs MANSOORUDDIN HYDER1983 CLC 812 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- HAIDER KHAN vs Syed MUHAMMAD NASEER.Opponent1983 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- HAIDER AND OTHERS vs REHMAN AND mums1983 PLD Rev. 50 · Board of Revenue · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- Haft ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS vs Khawaja QURESHI ALI MANSHA1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 22 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-07-17Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Syed MUHAMMAD YAHYA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND onion1983 CLC 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-16Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Syed ALI HASSAN vs THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 677 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD GHAZ1 vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FORESTRY1983 PLC (C. S.) 354 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- Hafiz IMAM BAKHSH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2016 (1) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZ ULLAH BHALLI vs DIRECTOR, HOUSING & PHYSICAL PLANNING, CIRCLE,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1194 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZ QAISAR AND ANOTHER vs MRS. PILLO J. MASTER AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 130 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- HADI HASSAN JAFRY vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1983 SC MR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the extent of property transferred to the petitioner via public auction under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the auction of property No. S-IV-22-S-14 encompassed the entire property or was restricted to specific quarters occupied by certain individuals. The Settlement authorities determined that the auction was limited to the three quarters in the occupation of Suba, Lal Din, and Rusi, and this finding was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner had failed to challenge the earlier remand order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which had finalized the extent of the property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the extent of the property was a question of fact, and the High Court was not obligated to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Settlement authorities. The principle laid down is that where an order defining the scope of a property transfer becomes final due to a failure to challenge it, the matter cannot be reopened, and findings of fact by specialized tribunals are generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the extent of property transferred in an auction after failing to contest a prior remand order that finalized that extent?
- Is the determination of the physical extent of property transferred in a settlement auction a question of fact that precludes interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
- Does an auction of a property number necessarily include all portions of that property if the auction particulars specify only certain occupied quarters?
- HABIBURRAHMAN vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1983 PLD Lahore 425 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a rent matter where the appellant-landlord sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on grounds of default and personal need for his son. While the Rent Controller ordered eviction based on the landlord's personal requirement, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the landlord's claim lacked bona fides due to the suppression of material facts regarding other business premises already in his possession. The core legal question was whether the landlord's failure to disclose existing properties and his subsequent inability to demonstrate why those properties were unsuitable for his needs negated the bona fide nature of his personal requirement. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a landlord's mere desire for eviction is insufficient; the burden lies on the landlord to satisfy the tribunal that the requirement is made in good faith. The Court affirmed that suppressing relevant facts regarding existing accommodation reflects negatively on a landlord's bona fides, and tribunals are not obligated to blindly accept a landlord's assertion of personal need without proper substantiation.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of facts regarding other available properties by a landlord negate the bona fide nature of a personal requirement claim?
- Is a landlord's mere desire to evict a tenant on the ground of personal need sufficient to satisfy the requirements of rent law?
- Does the burden of proving that existing premises are unsuitable for a landlord's needs lie with the landlord in an eviction proceeding?
- HABIBUR REHMAN SIDDIQUE, KANDHELVI AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANAND OTHERSPLD 1983 Federal Shariat Court 18(1) · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN AND anothers vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 670 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTANPLD 1983 Federal Shariat Court 13(1) · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-07-27Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder, where the death sentence was previously commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal question was whether, excluding certain disputed recoveries, the judicial and extra-judicial confessions, supported by attending circumstances, were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound. It affirmed that the extra-judicial confession was reliable, noting that the witnesses, despite being related to the deceased, had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant, who was their former student. The Court further held that apparent discrepancies in the motives stated in the judicial versus extra-judicial confessions were not mutually exclusive and did not undermine the prosecution's case. The Court established that medical evidence, even when the cause of death is difficult to ascertain due to body decomposition, can corroborate a confession if the accused's account of the weapon and injuries aligns with the findings. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can an extra-judicial confession be relied upon when the witnesses are related to the deceased?
- Does a discrepancy in the motive stated in a judicial confession versus an extra-judicial confession necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can medical evidence corroborate a confession even if the cause of death is not clearly ascertainable due to decomposition?
- Does the failure of a Magistrate to disclose their identity to an accused before recording a confession automatically invalidate the confession?
- HABIBULLAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 251 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH AND Another vs THE DIRECTOR (HEADQUARTERS), EXCISE &1983 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition questioning whether a provisional transferee of evacuee property by the Settlement Department is liable to pay property tax, and whether such tax can be levied repeatedly on an annual or half-yearly basis rather than only once. The core legal questions involve the interpretation of the definition of 'owner' under the relevant tax legislation regarding provisional transferees, and whether property tax under the statute is a one-time levy or a recurring yearly or half-yearly charge. The Supreme Court held that a provisional transferee is legally liable to pay property tax as an owner under the amended statutory definition, and that the tax is payable yearly or half-yearly as prescribed by the statute when read as a whole. The key principle laid down is that provisional transferees of evacuee property fall within the definition of 'owner' for tax liability purposes, and urban immovable property tax is a recurring annual or half-yearly levy rather than a single-occurrence tax.
Questions settled- Whether a provisional transferee of an evacuee property is liable to pay property tax under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act?
- Can urban immovable property tax be levied repeatedly on a yearly or half-yearly basis or only once?
- HABIBULLAH AND 6 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD UMAR1983 CLC 2206 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- HABIB-UR-REHMAN vs MALIK COTTON FACTORY1983 PLC 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
- HABIB vs The STATE1983 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition challenging the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court regarding a criminal case under Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge acts without jurisdiction by refusing to accept a police application for 'cancellation' of a case under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and instead directing the police to submit a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge did not interfere with the investigation but merely performed a mandatory judicial duty. The Court clarified that the police must submit a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regardless of whether they find sufficient evidence (Section 170) or insufficient evidence (Section 169). The principle laid down is that a Magistrate or Sessions Judge has the authority to review the police's final report and, under Section 173(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, may either accept the police's findings or, if they disagree, summon the accused for trial, thereby ensuring judicial oversight over police investigations.
Questions settled- Does a Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an application for the 'cancellation' of a case under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a valid substitute for a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What powers does a Magistrate possess under Section 173(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upon receiving a final report from the police?
- HABIB ULLAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR RANGE AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 763 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- HABIB ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- HABIB KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1571 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- HABIB KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal arising from disputes over the verification of land claims by displaced persons. The core legal question is whether, following the amendment of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 by the Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1964, a Claims Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to review or revise an order verifying a claim after March 31, 1965, where the record of such claim had not been called for prior to that date. The background involves allegations that certain land claims were obtained through fraud, as the villages in question had been acquired by the government long before the verification. While a Settlement and Claims Commissioner previously held that he lacked jurisdiction to review the verification after the statutory cutoff date, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively determine the scope of the Claims Commissioner's revisional powers under the amended legislation. The Court ordered that these petitions be heard together with other pending matters involving the same legal issue to resolve the jurisdictional conflict regarding the finality of claim verifications.
Questions settled- Does a Claims Commissioner have jurisdiction to review or revise an order verifying a claim after March 31, 1965, if the record was not called for before that date?
- What is the effect of the Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1964, on the power of the Claims Commissioner to review claim verifications?
- HABIB HASSAN QADRI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), SIND AND Another1983 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court arising from a dispute concerning the calculation of Produce Index Units (P. I. U.s) for agricultural land allotted to a displaced person under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner contended that his land allotment, which included Banjar Qadim and Chahi units, was wrongly calculated entirely at the rate of Flow land, ignoring applicable correction slips and entitlement rules, thereby causing him a substantial loss in P. I. U.s. He further claimed entitlement to an extra allowance for Chahi units. After his departmental objections and appeals were dismissed, and his subsequent constitutional petition was rejected by the High Court, the petitioner approached this Court. The core legal question involved the correct calculation of P. I. U.s and the retrospective or prospective application of relevant correction slips under the scheme. The Supreme Court found the petitioner's contentions regarding the miscalculation and the non-retrospective operation of subsequent correction slips worthy of consideration, thus granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether agricultural land comprising Banjar Qadim must be calculated at a reduced rate of Produce Index Units in accordance with the relevant correction slips?
- Whether subsequent correction slips modifying the calculation of Produce Index Units have retrospective operation?
- Whether a displaced person acquires a vested right for the settlement of land claims based on the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme existing at the time of allotment?
- HABIB GUL vs THE PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD1983 PLD Lahore 161 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- HABIB GUL vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1983 PLC 1021 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-01Read full judgment →