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.
- ASHAQ vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for causing injuries to a complainant. The petitioner was initially convicted under Section 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the appellate court reduced the conviction to Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while maintaining the sentence. The petitioner challenged his conviction before the High Court, arguing that because six co-accused were acquitted on the basis that the eye-witnesses were not supported by medical evidence, the petitioner should also be acquitted as the witnesses were unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the record and rejected this contention. The Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused by the appellate court was not justified, and therefore, the petitioner could not rely on that acquittal to invalidate his own conviction. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle a petitioner to acquittal where the underlying reasoning for the co-accused's acquittal is itself flawed.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the ground of unreliable eye-witness testimony automatically entitle a remaining accused to acquittal?
- Can an appellate court's unjustified acquittal of co-accused be used as a ground for the acquittal of the remaining accused?
- ASGHAR ALI. MEMOONA KAUSAR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 201 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2187 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the legality of police re-investigation following the judicial cancellation of a criminal case. The petitioner, initially accused of cheating and breach of trust, was discharged after the police reported the matter as civil in nature and the Magistrate ordered the case's cancellation. Subsequently, the police re-investigated the matter without judicial authorization and submitted a new challan. The core legal question was whether the police possess the authority to re-investigate a case once a Magistrate has ordered its cancellation. The Court held that the police lack such authority. It established that while the Code of Criminal Procedure does not explicitly define 'cancellation,' the power is derived from the Magistrate's supervisory role. Once a Magistrate cancels a case, the police cannot unilaterally re-investigate. The Court laid down the principle that if the police obtain new information, they must first apply to the Magistrate to recall the cancellation order. Absent such a judicial order, any subsequent investigation and trial proceedings are unlawful. Consequently, the Court quashed the pending proceedings against the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can the police re-investigate a criminal case after a Magistrate has ordered its cancellation without obtaining a fresh order from the Magistrate?
- Does the police have the authority to unilaterally re-investigate a case that has been closed as being of a civil nature?
- What is the legal procedure for the police to follow if they possess new information regarding a case that has previously been cancelled by a Magistrate?
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 3307 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- ARMED-UL-NABI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1243 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- ARIFULLAH SHAH AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 267 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-09Read full judgment →
- ARIF NAWAZ alias GOLDY AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 594 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1823(2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-29Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN vs MARIA ELICE HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 353 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN AND Another vs ABID HUSSAIN AND Other1983 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences of three accused-appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a co-villager. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the deceased with sharp-edged weapons in a dried-up pond, carried his body to their haveli, and fled. The High Court had confirmed the death sentences. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the ocular evidence and physical circumstances. The Court observed a critical discrepancy: despite the deceased sustaining multiple stab wounds, there was no trail of blood between the alleged site of attack (the pond) and the haveli where the body was found. Furthermore, the eye-witnesses were highly interested and inimical, and the recoveries of the weapons and blood-stained clothes were highly doubtful and delayed. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal of the convicts, and acquitted them.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted of murder when there is a complete absence of a trail of blood between the alleged site of attack and the place where the body was found?
- Whether the delayed recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes in unlocked or easily accessible rooms is sufficient to corroborate inimical ocular testimony?
- Does the failure of close relatives of the deceased to intervene or attempt to rescue him, despite being present at the scene, cast doubt on their presence as eye-witnesses?
- ARICK Alias ARI Alias HARRY vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-16Read full judgment →
- ARBITRATION BETWEEN DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET NORDON AKTIESELSKALE vs AHMED SHIPPING LINES LIMITED, WALLACE ROAD, KARACHI1983 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application to enforce a foreign arbitration award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The core legal questions were whether an award rendered by an Umpire, where the underlying charter-party clause specified three arbitrators, was valid, and whether the Umpire possessed the authority to award interest on the damages. The Court held that the award was valid and enforceable. Applying the principle that the validity of a foreign award is governed by the law of the country where it was made, the Court relied on Section 9(1) of the English Arbitration Act, 1950, which mandates that an agreement for three arbitrators be treated as an agreement for an Umpire. Consequently, the Umpire’s decision was upheld. Additionally, the Court affirmed that under English law, arbitrators have the authority to award interest on damages in commercial transactions. The Court rejected the respondents' reliance on Pakistani precedents, emphasizing that the lex loci arbitri governs the procedure and substantive rights of the arbitration, thereby directing the award to be made a rule of the Court.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration clause providing for three arbitrators effectively mandate the appointment of an Umpire under the English Arbitration Act, 1950?
- Is the validity of a foreign arbitration award determined by the law of the country where the award was made?
- Does an arbitrator have the legal authority to award interest on damages in a commercial dispute governed by English law?
- Arbab MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs STATE THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LASBELLA AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- Araab MUKHTAR AHMED vs SECTRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,1983 PLC (C. S.) 104 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ alias ANWAR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 234 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-04-28Read full judgment →
- ANWARUDDIN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2463 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- ANWAR-UD-DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C.S.)11 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ANWAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MUHAMMAD vs INAMUR RAHIM KHAN1983 CLC 376 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-08Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MEHTAB ZAIDI AND 2 Other vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LABOUR1983 PLC (C. S.) 40 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MASIH vs WAILAT AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MASIH vs MRS. VINNIS OLIVER KOKHAR AND Other1983 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 30-6-1976 and a subsequent judgment of a learned Division Bench dated 18-1-1977 dismissing the Intra-Court Appeal. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner has raised any substantial question of law warranting interference by the court, as opposed to merely seeking an inquiry into questions of fact. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since no question of law was raised and the petitioner only sought an inquiry into questions of fact, the petition is devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings or factual inquiries where no valid question of law is presented.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent judgments when only questions of fact are raised?
- Is a petition barred by time with respect to the Single Judge's judgment maintainable when directed against an Intra-Court Appeal?
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LARKANA AND 41983 CLC 851 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a civil suit by lower courts, which held that the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred regarding a dispute over a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued by the Settlement Department. The petitioner’s father had purchased a property, paid the consideration, and received a PTD. Subsequently, authorities declared the compensation book used for payment as bogus and threatened to cancel the PTD. The core legal question was whether civil courts possess jurisdiction to review the actions of a Special Tribunal when an order is challenged as illegal, void, or violative of natural justice, and whether settlement authorities retain power to cancel a PTD once issued. The High Court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to examine whether a Special Tribunal acted within the law, particularly when orders are void or breach fundamental procedural principles. Furthermore, the Court ruled that settlement authorities lack the power to reopen or cancel a PTD once issued, as it confers a vested right. Consequently, the impugned notice and cancellation were declared void.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to review the actions of a Special Tribunal if the order is alleged to be illegal or void?
- Can a Settlement Authority cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed after it has been issued?
- Is a show-cause notice required before a Settlement Authority can cancel a transfer of property?
- ANWAR HUSSAIN AND 5 Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI SHAH vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- ANSAR KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- ANSAR BURNEY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 73 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN-I-ISLAMIA PAKISTAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN-E-FALAH (REGD.), ORANGI TOWNSHIP, KARACHI vs THE DIRECTOR1983 CLC 3187 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN TALIMULISLAM (REGD.), SHEIKHUPURA vs PROVINCE OF WEST1983 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant challenging the resumption of a land grant by the Collector. The appellant had purchased the land from the Provincial Government via a sale-deed in 1959 for the purpose of constructing an oriental languages school. The Collector subsequently resumed the land under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, alleging that the appellant had violated the conditions of the grant by using the property for commercial purposes. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that a declaratory suit without a prayer for possession was not maintainable, and that Section 36 of the Act barred civil court jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court reversed these findings. It held that once proprietary rights are conferred and a sale-deed is executed, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant, and the Collector loses the unilateral power of resumption under Section 24. Any alleged breach of conditions must be resolved either through civil litigation or by invoking the arbitration clause contained in the sale-deed, as mandated by paragraph 155-A of the Colony Manual and Section 30 of the Act.
Questions settled- Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction to unilaterally resume land under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 after proprietary rights have been conferred and a sale-deed executed?
- Does Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts where the action of the statutory authority is ultra vires or without jurisdiction?
- Should a civil suit fail solely because the plaintiff did not pray for the consequential relief of possession, or must the court allow an opportunity to amend the plaint?
- How must the Government enforce a right of re-entry for breach of conditions in a land grant once the grantee has acquired proprietary status and the deed contains an arbitration clause?
- AND Others vs LIAQUAT HAYAT KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, by special leave of the Supreme Court, challenge a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside orders passed by the Land Commission Authorities in constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation and application of paragraphs 2(10) and 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation (Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972) regarding the calculation of Produce Index Units for land falling within municipal limits, where terminology in revenue records (such as 'Nehri Awal') differed from the entries in the relevant Produce Index Units booklet (such as 'Special Class Town Land'). The Supreme Court held that neither the High Court nor the Land Authorities could strictly and literally apply conflicting classifications without properly correlating the rationale between the revenue records and the settlement booklet entries. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Chief Land Commissioner for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that where a direct textual mismatch exists between soil classification in revenue records and Produce Index Unit tables, authorities must logically correlate the entries or invoke statutory powers to determine appropriate measures rather than rely purely on literal interpretations.
Questions settled- How are Produce Index Units to be calculated under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 when descriptions in revenue records differ from entries in the settlement booklet?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the Land Commission Authorities regarding soil classification?
- What is the proper course of action for authorities when statutory soil classification and Produce Index Unit entries cannot be directly correlated?
- AMOLAK RAM KHOSLA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-Il1983 PTD 283 · Supreme Court of India · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- AMJAD MIRZA AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS, ZONE VIII, KARACHI AND 10 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- AMIR NAWAZ KHAN vs NAWAB KHAN1983 PLD Peshawar 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1983 PLD Supreme Court 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former employee of the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation, sought payment under a Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme following his termination due to blindness. His application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was initially dismissed by the Labour Court as time-barred, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter. The Baluchistan High Court subsequently ruled against the petitioner, holding that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, did not apply to the respondent organization because it was carried on under the authority of the Federal Government and governed by statutory service rules. The High Court further affirmed the application was time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying two primary legal questions: whether the proviso to Section 1(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, excludes the respondent from its scope given the management structure under the Provincial Industrial Development Corporation (West Pakistan) Ordinance, 1962, and whether the claim for group insurance is governed by the limitation period prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 1(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, exclude an establishment from its scope if its management is vested in a Board?
- Is the limitation period for a claim under the Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- AMIR DIN AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2836 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-08Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1022 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- AMIR AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 406 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI BAJWA AND OTHERS vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CANAL AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs AMANULLAH AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1330 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
- AMINUDDIN AND 10 OTHERS vs ABDUL SALAM AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 3110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- AMFATCO LTD. vs ABBAS ALI SHAH And ANOTHER1983 PLC 792 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-11Read full judgment →
- AMEER ALI BARQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,1983 PLC (C. S.) 142 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- AMBALA CANTT. ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. vs COMMISSIONER1983 PTD 166 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1981-07-27Read full judgment →
- AMAR LAL AND ANOTHER vs Maulvi MUHAMMAD SAEED1983 CLC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 544 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
- ALVIA TABLIGHI TRUST vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-23Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1148 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMAD vs MESSRS PECO LTD.1983 PLC 292 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Alm Syeda SAEEDA FAT IMA AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL HAMID AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the appellant-landlords seeking eviction of the respondent-tenants on grounds of bona fide personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. While the Rent Controller ordered eviction, the District Judge reversed the decision, holding that the landlords could not seek possession because excess rent had been deposited by the tenants and required prior adjustment, and because one of the appellants occupied another bungalow in Peshawar Cantonment. The High Court dismissed the landlords' second appeal in limine, placing the burden on the landlord to disprove ownership of the Cantonment property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the burden to prove the landlord's ownership of alternative accommodation lay on the party alleging it. Furthermore, accommodation occupied by courtesy without ownership does not disentitle a landlord, and a Cantonment area does not constitute the same 'urban area' under the Ordinance. The eviction order of the Rent Controller was accordingly restored.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving that a landlord owns alternative residential accommodation rest on the tenant who alleges that fact?
- Does accommodation occupied merely by courtesy of relatives without proprietary interest qualify as 'another residential building suitable for his needs' under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does an area administered by a Cantonment Board fall within the definition of an 'urban area' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a landlord be disentitled from seeking eviction on grounds of personal requirement merely because the tenant deposited rent in excess of what was due?
- ALLY JANG SHAH KHAN vs Mst. ANWARY BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 1446 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM BUTT1983 CLC 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN vs M. A. SATTAR A. SHAKOOR & CO. AND 7 OTHERS1983 CLC 2644 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HUMAYLTN KHAN AND 21983 PLC 498 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 1946 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 983 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHIO Alias MORE vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1714 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 192 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH NOOK vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI1983 PLC (C. S.) 228 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTO AND OTHERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCHARGE SETTLEMENT1983 CLC 2989 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-01Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA WAHEED vs LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 67 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA KHALIQ DAD, ETC. vs THE STATE THE STATE1983 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND OTHERS vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3087 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT1983 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue confirming land in favor of respondent No. 3, while vendees-petitioners claim the right to purchase the same land based on an earlier order of the Assistant Commissioner under the scheme for disposal of unallotted agricultural land. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent's claim constituted pending proceedings under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, whether the evacuee laws and related schemes survived the repeal, and whether the petitioners possessed a vested right or locus standi to challenge the confirmation. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent's earmarking and entries constituted pending proceedings under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act / relevant repealing legislation, which had to be finalized under the repealed Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Consequently, the land was not available for sale to the petitioners, rendering the Assistant Commissioner's prior order allowing the sale void and without jurisdiction. The court laid down that void orders confer no vested rights and do not attract the principle of audi alteram partem, and that persons without a valid title or eligibility have no locus standi to question third-party allotments.
Questions settled- Whether earmarking of land and entries in revenue registers constitute pending proceedings under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975?
- Does a void order passed without jurisdiction create any vested right or entitle a party to a hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem?
- Whether unallotted agricultural land subject to pending proceedings remains available for sale to third parties under the disposal schemes framed upon the repeal of evacuee laws?
- Do petitioners lacking eligibility or a valid title have the locus standi to question the allotment and confirmation made in favor of a respondent?
- ALLAH DITTA AND MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE THE STATE (A) Penal Code1983 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND Another vs Mst. JAMILA BEGUM AND Other1983 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, which ordered the eviction of the petitioners after striking off their defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners committed a default in depositing the rent pursuant to the court order, whether the landlord waived or condoned any such default through delay, and whether a single co-owner is competent to institute ejectment proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding default were justified, that no waiver or condonation could be inferred since the landlord raised the objection promptly upon discovering the deposit details, and that a co-owner is fully competent to maintain ejectment proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether a single co-owner is competent to bring ejectment proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does a delay in applying for striking off the defence for non-deposit of rent amount to a waiver or condonation of default by the landlord?
- Are concurrent findings of lower courts regarding default in rent deposit liable to interference in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- ALLAH DITTA AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND 2 OTHERS vs WALAYAT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 703 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DINO vs Mst. SABIRA AND 6 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DI WAYA AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2205 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAWAYA vs THE STATE AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. LJ 2224 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2477 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2394 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, T & T, ISLAMABAD1983 PLC (C. S.) 1084 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKSH vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 1210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2281 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs GHULAM RASOOL1983 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs ABDUL HAFEEZ AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2663 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH SABRI vs THE COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 167 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs Mst. KHURSHID1983 CLC 450 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- ALL PAKISTAN WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD ALEEM1983 CLC 2613 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- ALL JANConvict vs THE STATE1983 PLD Quetta 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- ALIMUDDIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2457 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- ALIF DIN vs Mst. ARSHAD BEGUM AND Others1983 CLC 49 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- ALIF DIN AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1983 SCMR 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment dismissing his constitutional petition, which had challenged the reversal of permission granted to him under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The core legal question concerned whether the Board of Revenue could lawfully treat a sanction granted under section 19 as void solely based on an internal administrative circular prohibiting such transfers, without examining allegations of fraud or affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contentions—including the lack of opportunity of hearing, the interpretation of the circular regarding ejected tenants, and the interdependent nature of the transfer transactions—raised substantial grounds requiring in-depth examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that administrative circulars cannot override statutory discretions without proper scrutiny of facts, and affected parties must be granted a fair hearing before administrative interference with settled property rights.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Revenue can declare a transfer sanction under section 19 void solely on the basis of a general administrative circular without examining allegations of fraud?
- Is an affected grantee entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the cancellation or reversal of a sanctioned land transfer?
- Whether general instructions issued by the Board of Revenue can override statutory permissions granted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
- ALI SHER AND 2 Other vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, SIND AND ? OTHERS1983 PLC 171 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-01Read full judgment →
- ALI RAZA vs TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI1983 PLC 965 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- ALI RAZA SHAH vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 196 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 2238 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →