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.
- BANGLADESH SHIPPING CORPORATION vs S. S. "NEDON "1982 CLC 146 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
- BANARAS KHAN ETC vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA ETC.1982 PLD Supreme Court 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a land acquisition dispute where WAPDA acquired the petitioners' land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court misread evidence regarding relevant revenue entries (Khasra Girdawaries or Jamabandies) in assessing the classification and compensation value of the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider that the disputed fields were adjacent to well-irrigated Chahi land and shared the same potential, supported by presumption of correctness attached to Jamabandi entries. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Additional District Judge's decree assessing the land as Chahi. The key principle laid down is that the potential of agricultural land, such as its capacity to be irrigated by an adjacent well, must not be ignored when determining its classification and compensation value in land acquisition proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the potential of land to be irrigated by an adjacent well can be considered in determining its classification for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does a Jamabandi entry describing land as Chahi carry a presumption of correctness in land acquisition proceedings?
- Whether the High Court's order based on the misreading of Khasra Girdawaris or Jamabandies is liable to be set aside by the Supreme Court?
- BALLIA AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentences of the petitioners for committing multiple murders in the Sahiwal district. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular evidence, the testimony of chance and child witnesses, and the requirement of independent corroboration where a co-accused has been acquitted on the same evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised regarding the presence of witnesses, the naturalness of the motive, the tainted nature of recovery evidence, and the implications of the co-accused's acquittal require further re-examination and consideration by the appellate forum. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to reassess the evidence and test the sustainability of the capital convictions.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a capital case?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence necessitate independent corroboration for sustaining the conviction of remaining co-accused?
- Can the uncorroborated evidence of a child witness sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
- Whether defective recovery evidence as to one accused undermines the entire prosecution case regarding weapon recoveries against other co-accused?
- BAKHTAWAR vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 136 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR AND Others vs MIR AFZAL KHAN AND 7 Other1982 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a suit for declaration, correction of revenue records, and permanent injunction filed by Sar Anjam Khan regarding a landed estate, claiming ownership based on a dower deed. The trial court decreed the suit in respect of an 1/8th share, holding that the dower deed created only a life estate. On appeal before the High Court, the plaintiff's claim was accepted, and the original contesting defendants admitted the claim and ceased contesting. The appellants, who were tenants seeking potential allotment of excess land upon resumption under Martial Law Regulation No. 64, were impleaded during the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 20, C.P.C. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court examined the locus standi of the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had no present right, title, or interest in the subject-matter of the suit, being total strangers who merely sought to benefit from a prospective allotment contingent upon the repealed or contested shares of respondents who had themselves compromised and abandoned the contest. Consequently, the Court found that the appellants lacked locus standi, recalled the leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether sitting tenants claiming potential land allotment upon resumption have locus standi to maintain an appeal regarding the title of the land?
- Does a dower deed conveying property to a wife operate to transfer the corpus or merely a life estate?
- Can parties impleaded as respondents or appellants in an appeal challenge a decree when the original contesting parties have admitted the claim and settled the dispute?
- BADRUDDIN vs J. B. ADVANI & Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- BADRUDDIN H. MAVANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 44 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a contract for the export of rice between the appellants and the Government of Pakistan, which was subject to a notification requiring double gunny bags for packing. At the request of the appellants, packing was altered to single gunny bags to comply with foreign letters of credit. After shipment, the appellants claimed the cost of the unused second gunny bags, which the respondent repudiated. The matter was referred to a sole arbitrator who rejected the claim, holding that the double-bag requirement was for safe export rather than the buyer's benefit, and that the appellants waived their claim by accepting single bags without reservation. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants' right to claim additional bags or compensation lapsed upon acceptance of the goods in single bags and their subsequent shipment, and that the arbitrator's findings were reasonable and not vitiated by illegality or misconduct. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a buyer who requests a modification in the packing terms of a contract of sale from double gunny bags to single gunny bags can subsequently claim compensation for the unused bags?
- Can an arbitration award be set aside under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the absence of legal misconduct or error apparent on the face of the award?
- Does the acceptance of goods in a deliverable state and their shipment amount to a waiver or lapsing of a right to claim additional items under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
- BADLA vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND ANOTMR1982 PLD Supreme Court 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent by the District Judge and upheld by the High Court. The defendant-petitioner contended that the transaction was an exchange rather than a sale, and alternatively, that if treated as a sale, it would be invalid under Martial Law Regulations 64 and 64-A of 1959 for reducing the vendor's remaining holding below the subsistence limit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the concurrent findings of fact that the transaction was indeed a sale disguised as an exchange. On the legal question of invalidity under the land reform regulations, the Court held that a civil court deciding a pre-emption suit is not required to test the validity of the sale on the touchstone of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64, provided a sale is established. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction disguised as an exchange can be determined by the court to be a sale for the purposes of a pre-emption suit?
- Whether a civil court deciding a pre-emption suit is required to test the validity of the underlying sale under Paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959?
- Can a pre-emption suit be decreed if the sale allegedly violates the restrictions on reducing land holdings below a subsistence level under Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959?
- BABU MIAN vs ABDUR REHMAN1982 CLC 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
- BABOO KHAN AND 5 Others vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2559 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-14Read full judgment →
- BABII vs Mst. NIAZ BIBI1982 PLD Lahore 192 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision matter arose from an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition that had been dismissed in default by the Lahore High Court when the petitioner's counsel failed to appear. On the same day of dismissal, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration on the ground that counsel was engaged before the Supreme Court. The respondent opposed the restoration, contending that a revision petition dismissed in default could not be restored and that no sufficient cause was demonstrated. The Lahore High Court held that a civil revision petition dismissed in default can indeed be restored if sufficient cause is shown for the non-appearance. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court established that dismissal in default is not a final judgment or order precluding restoration under inherent powers. Assessing the explanation offered, the Court held that counsel's engagement before the Supreme Court, supported by uncontradicted affidavits and a prompt restoration application filed on the same day, constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and restored the civil revision petition to its original number.
Questions settled- Whether a civil revision petition dismissed in default can be restored by the High Court upon showing sufficient cause?
- Whether counsel's engagement in proceedings before the Supreme Court constitutes sufficient cause for restoration of a case dismissed in default?
- Whether an order dismissing a revision petition in default constitutes a final judgment precluding restoration?
- BA SARA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
- B.C. PAUL vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 151 · Calcutta High Court · 1980-09-11Read full judgment →
- B. Z. KAIKAUS vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 409 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- AZMATULLAH HUSAINI vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT1982 PLC 973 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1982 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a direct recruit to the Class II Service of the Industries Department, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his intra-court appeal by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved whether a recommendation made by the Punjab Civil Service (Appellate) Tribunal could be treated as a binding direction and whether the High Court correctly held that the petitioner's remedy lay before the Supreme Court under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal's earlier observation was merely a recommendation and not a direction, but because it had been misread as a direction in subsequent proceedings, the petitioner's proper remedy against the tribunal's subsequent order lay under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that the authorities were only directed to examine the recommendation, and if accepted, the petitioner would have remedies before the Services Tribunal if his seniority was affected. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a recommendation made by the Punjab Civil Service (Appellate) Tribunal can be construed as a binding direction?
- What is the appropriate constitutional remedy against an order passed by a Service Tribunal?
- Does a government directive to merely examine a service tribunal's recommendation furnish a cause of action for a grievance?
- AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 807 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, Jan Muhammad. The petitioners challenged the conviction, primarily contending that a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the deceased's ability to speak rendered the First Information Report (F.I.R.) a fabrication and undermined the credibility of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court considered whether the alleged medical impossibility of the deceased speaking after the neck injury invalidated the F.I.R. and the ocular evidence. The Court held that the medical evidence did not definitively establish that the vocal cords were severed, allowing the courts below to prefer the oral testimony regarding the deceased's ability to dictate the F.I.R. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that even if the F.I.R. were excluded, the remaining evidence from neutral and independent witnesses, alongside motive and recovery of weapons, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that minor medical discrepancies do not automatically discredit reliable ocular testimony.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on ocular testimony regarding a dying declaration if there is an alleged conflict with medical opinion regarding the deceased's ability to speak?
- Does a potential conflict between medical evidence and the F.I.R. automatically discredit the entire prosecution case?
- Is the testimony of a neutral and independent witness sufficient to sustain a conviction even if other parts of the prosecution evidence are challenged?
- AZIM KHAN vs RASHID AHMAD ETC.1982 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the respondents were entitled to pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case, including subsequent involvement in other criminal acts and specific firearm allegations. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the respondents' subsequent abscondence and involvement in another murder case, along with specific firearm attribution in the FIR, warranted the cancellation of their anticipatory bail. The key principle laid down is that subsequent criminal conduct such as abscondence in a murder case disentitles an accused from retaining pre-arrest bail, and minor evidentiary nuances do not justify pre-arrest bail in the face of specific fatal allegations.
Questions settled- Does subsequent abscondence in another murder case justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the presence of multiple firearm injuries at the same point on a deceased person's body a sufficient ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail granted by a High Court can be cancelled by the Supreme Court upon conversion of a petition into an appeal?
- AZHAR ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1982 CLC 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
- AZAM KHALIL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, S. G. A. AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 140 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- AZAM AND Another vs BAZ KHAN AND 5 Other1982 PLD QUETTA 126 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- AZAM ALLY KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), HYDERABAD AND 31982 CLC 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- AZAD FRIENDS' & COMPANY LTD. vs EMPLOYEES UNION1982 PLC 825 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- AYAZ HUSSAIN vs WORKSHOP EQUIPMENT M. C. P. WORKSHOP, SUKKUR1982 PLC 481 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
- AVTAR KRISHAN DASS vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 70 · Delhi High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
- AUTO PISTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX45 TAX 104 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
- AUTO PISTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD vs COMMISSIONER OE45 TAX 104 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
- AURANGZEB JAHANGIRI vs POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS LTD.1982 PLC 658 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- AURANG KHAN AND 3 Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE III AND 2 Other1982 PLD Quetta 146 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
- ATTOCK OIL CO. LTD., RAWALPINDI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI45 TAX 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed by Attock Oil Co. Ltd. concerning the assessment years 1955-56 to 1965-66, where the petitioner sought to set off expenses incurred in running and subsidizing schools for the children of its employees under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The core legal question is whether the educational expenses incurred by the employer under threat of an industrial dispute fall under Section 10(2)(xvi) or are barred by Section 10(2)(xvi)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted it. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's view and whether the expenses fall within the claimed statutory provision. The key principle laid down is that expenses incurred by an employer to meet employee demands to avert industrial disputes warrant a detailed examination regarding their deductibility as business expenditures under the Income Tax Act.
Questions settled- Whether expenses incurred by a company in running and subsidizing schools for the children of its employees fall under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Are educational expenses incurred to meet employee demands and avert an industrial dispute hit by the provisions of Section 10(2)(xvi)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- ATTOCK OIL CO. LT., RAWALPINDI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI45 TAX 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the tax deductibility of expenses incurred by the petitioner, Attock Oil Co. Ltd., for maintaining and subsidizing schools for its employees' children. The petitioner sought to set off these expenses against its income for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1965-66, invoking Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer had rejected the claim, citing Section 10(2)(xvi)(a), a decision initially overturned by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the expenses incurred by the company to meet employee demands and prevent industrial disputes qualify as deductible business expenses under Section 10(2)(xvi) or are excluded by the provisions of Section 10(2)(xvi)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Finding that the High Court's interpretation requires further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the applicability of the statutory provisions to the petitioner's claim.
Questions settled- Whether expenses incurred by an employer for subsidizing schools for employees' children to avert an industrial dispute qualify as deductible business expenses under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act 1922?
- Does the exclusion under Section 10(2)(xvi)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1922 apply to expenditures incurred by a company for the education of its employees' children?
- ATTIYA ZULFIQAR MALIK vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1982 PLC (C. S.) 94 · Labour Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 20 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- ATIQ-UR-REHMAN (MINOR) AND 7 Other vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-26Read full judgment →
- ATIQ ALI BOKHARI vs PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 443 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- ATIQ AHM ED vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 815 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS LTD. vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1982 CLC 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two suits involving objections filed by the Karachi Municipal Corporation against two separate non-speaking arbitration awards dated 7th September 1980, rendered by a sole arbitrator in disputes arising from construction contracts for a hospital. The core legal questions revolved around whether a non-speaking award is invalid for lack of reasons or separate findings on issues, whether insufficiency of evidence vitiates such an award, and whether a contractor can claim damages for delay in a lump-sum contract. The court held that an arbitrator is not required by law to give reasons or separate findings on each issue, insufficiency of evidence is no ground to set aside a non-speaking award, and lump-sum contracts do not bar a contractor from claiming damages for delays attributable to the employer. The key principles laid down are that non-speaking arbitration awards cannot be scrutinized for insufficiency of evidence or lack of reasons unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award, and employers remain liable for provable damages caused by unexcused delays in contract completion.
Questions settled- Whether a non-speaking arbitration award can be challenged on the ground that the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for his decision?
- Does an arbitrator commit an illegality by failing to record separate findings on each individual issue framed during arbitration proceedings?
- Can a contractor claim damages for delay in completion under a lump-sum contract in the absence of a specific contractual prohibition against such claims?
- To what extent can a court examine the evidence on record when the challenge is directed against a non-speaking arbitration award?
- Assessee vs Department45 TAX 5 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
- ASOKE KUMAR SEN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-V, NEW DELHI, AND ANOTHER45 TAX 268 · Delhi High CourtRead full judgment →
- ASMAT ULLAH AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM ALI1982 CLC 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- ASIF KHAYAM vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE. AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE1982 CLC 2101 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- ASIF ALI AND OTHERS vs SUI GAS AUTHORITY1982 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- ASIF ALI AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 833 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
- ASIF ALI AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 833 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF vs The STATE1982 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. The core legal question was whether the testimony of three eye-witnesses, all closely related to the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite defense arguments that their presence at the scene was unnatural and their testimony required corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the eye-witnesses were natural witnesses whose presence at the scene—adjacent to their residence—was logical. The Court found no reason to disbelieve them, noting the absence of hostility between the parties. The holding establishes that the testimony of related witnesses is credible when they are natural witnesses, particularly when their accounts are corroborated by motive, medical evidence, and the appellant's subsequent abscondence. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, affirming that the High Court correctly relied upon the consistent and corroborated testimony of the eye-witnesses.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person serve as corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses inherently unreliable if they are related to the deceased?
- ASHRAF Alias ASHRI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 666(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Ashraf alias Ashri, challenging the Lahore High Court's judgment that upheld his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on the ocular testimony of two witnesses and evidence of motive regarding a monetary dispute, following the stabbing of the deceased. The petitioner contended that the eye-witnesses were unreliable, arguing that one was a close relative of the deceased and the other was not a true eye-witness as he only witnessed the accused fleeing the scene. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the lower courts had properly considered the evidence and were justified in their conclusions. Emphasizing that it would not undertake a reappraisal of evidence merely to reach a different conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the findings of the courts below were based on reliable testimony.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court undertake a reappraisal of evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal where the lower courts have already considered the evidence?
- Is the testimony of a maternal uncle of the deceased inherently unreliable in a murder trial?
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No, 'C', ZONE 'C', KARACHI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-12Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI vs PRESIDENT SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No. 'C', ZONE 'C', KARACHI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-12Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF ALI vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs ASHIQ ALI SHAH AND Another1982 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Ashiq Ali Shah, of the murder of Amanat Shah. The respondent had been convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court based on evidence including an approver's testimony, extra-judicial confession, and recoveries of weapons. The High Court acquitted the respondent, finding significant evidentiary gaps and failing to exclude the possibility of innocence. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the prosecution's reliance on the 'last seen' theory, the approver's testimony, and the extra-judicial confession. The Court found the 'last seen' evidence improbable due to existing family enmity, noted the approver's statement was exculpatory and unreliable, and determined the retracted extra-judicial confession lacked credibility and was potentially influenced. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appreciation of evidence did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference with an acquittal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the lower court's reasoning is fundamentally flawed or perverse.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the High Court's appreciation of evidence is not shown to be infirm?
- Is an exculpatory statement by an approver sufficient to support a conviction?
- Does the existence of family enmity render the 'last seen' theory improbable in a murder case?
- ASGHAR ALI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, along with 18 others, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his pre-arrest bail petition by the High Court in a case involving offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, arising from an inquiry into the alleged forgery and cheating regarding the sale of State land. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail under the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering lack of sufficient opportunity during the inquiry and the grant of bail to co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail before arrest to the petitioner subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when not given sufficient opportunity to explain allegations during an inquiry?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused persons justify the concession of pre-arrest bail to another petitioner in the same case?
- ASGHAR ALI vs QAMARUL HASSAN1982 PLD Karachi 993 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs PAKISTAN FISHERIES LTD.1982 PLC 184 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-18Read full judgment →
- ASAD ALI ALVI vs NAZIR1982 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision concerns the rejection of plaints in suits for pre-emption regarding urban residential plots. The respondents initially claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being khewatdar and yakjaddi, which are grounds applicable to agricultural land, not urban immovable property. After the limitation period expired and the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suits, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaints to include the ground of contiguity. The trial court rejected the amendment and subsequently the plaints for failing to disclose a cause of action. The appellate court allowed the amendment and remanded the cases. The High Court, in revision, set aside the appellate order. The Court held that a pre-emptor cannot amend a plaint to introduce a new ground of superiority after the period of limitation has expired, as this fundamentally changes the character of the suit. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff must succeed on the grounds originally pleaded and cannot seek to rectify a legally deficient claim by introducing new grounds after the limitation period.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit amend the plaint to add a new ground of superiority after the expiry of the limitation period?
- Does the introduction of a new ground of superiority in a pre-emption suit change the character of the suit?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the grounds pleaded are legally inapplicable to the subject matter?
- ARZ MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 802 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-26Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD MAH MOOD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND 4 Other1982 PLD Lahore 660 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD BROTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD BROTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD AKRAM & CO. AND 8 Other vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTANPLD ,1982 Lahore 109 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ARMAN GUL vs The STATE1982 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction for murder. The core legal question concerned whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, provided during a night-time occurrence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly when challenged on grounds of identification and lack of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, finding that the ocular testimony was consistent with the medical evidence, which confirmed the injuries were caused by a single shot fired from close range. The Court affirmed that interested witnesses are credible when their testimony is corroborated by the circumstances of the case, including the established motive and the subsequent abscondence of the accused. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that identification was impossible due to darkness, noting the presence of adequate lighting at the crime scene. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the prosecution had successfully established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular evidence and the accused's flight from justice.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of interested witnesses be sufficient to sustain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person serve as corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Is ocular testimony regarding identification in a night-time occurrence reliable if the scene was illuminated?
- Can a conviction be upheld when ocular testimony is consistent with medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries?
- ARIF NAWAZ BUTT vs D.I-G. POLICE (TRAFFIC) AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 751 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
- ARIF MAHMOOD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 733 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN AND Another AND SUBE SHAH vs THE STATE ARIF HUSSAIN ETC.S1982 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 543 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
- ARAG INDUSTRIES LTD. vs PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AUTHORITY ETC.1982 PLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
- AQUEEL AHMED ANSARI vs P. I. A. CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- AQIL AHMED AND 12 Others vs Mirza AHMED BAIG GHAZI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 961 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
- APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MUGHAL LTD.1982 CLC 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ KHAN vs Ch. JAMAL DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether an ex parte judgment passed by the High Court against the petitioner was sustainable when the name of the petitioner's engaged counsel was omitted from the cause list, resulting in the petitioner being condemned unheard. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the absence of the counsel whose name was missing from the cause list was excusable, and passing an ex parte judgment without affording an opportunity of representation violated principles of natural justice. The Court converted the petitions into appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remitted the matters back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits after hearing both parties. The key principle laid down is that where a counsel's name is omitted from the cause list and a party is consequently unrepresented and condemned unheard, any resulting ex parte order or judgment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte judgment passed by the High Court is sustainable when the counsel's name was omitted from the cause list?
- Does the absence of a counsel whose name does not appear in the cause list constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Can an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by condemning a party unheard be set aside?
- ANWAR SHAH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
- ANWAR SHAH vs PRESIDING OFFICER ,SIND LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 613 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- ANWAR KHAN KHANZADA AND 3 Other vs GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 72 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs KANEES ABBAS AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs K AN EES A BBAS AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. DASKA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD AZAM1982 SCMR 1012 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI Alias GHULAM ANWAR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
- ANWAAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs SHARIFAN1982 CLC 531(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN JAMIA AHLI HADITH vs Hafiz ABDUL QADIR AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN ARAIAN, BHERA vs ABDUL RASHID AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant, Anjuman Araian, Bhera, challenging the allotment and subsequent sale approval of evacuee trust land on which the appellant had constructed a mosque and madrassa. The core legal question is whether an unauthorized occupant or trespasser possessing no legal right or title to the property qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' with locus standi to invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that a trespasser in unauthorized possession lacks the requisite locus standi to challenge transfer orders of property to third parties, as such possession confers no legal interest or legitimate expectation recognized by law. The court established the principle that invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction requires demonstrating a direct or indirect injury and a substantial, legally sanctioned interest in the subject matter, which does not extend to persons maintaining illicit or unauthorized occupation of public or trust properties.
Questions settled- Whether an unauthorized occupant or trespasser of property has the locus standi to maintain a constitutional writ petition against the transfer of such property?
- Can a person without any legal right or title in the corpus of a property be considered an aggrieved person under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- Does a trespasser acquire a legitimate expectation or legal interest to challenge allotment and sale orders passed by the authorities regarding trust land?
- AMJAD AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court to two petitioners, Amjad and Mahmood, who were charged alongside seven others under Sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the investigation, the prosecution found the case against seven of the co-accused to be false, leading to their release on bail, while the petitioners remained challaned. The petitioners argued that because the initial version of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was proven false regarding the majority of the accused, it lacked sanctity. Furthermore, they contended that only a single injury on the leg of the deceased was attributed to each of them. The Supreme Court, without delving into the merits of the case, held that in the specific circumstances presented, the petitioners were entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners subject to the provision of sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar.
Questions settled- Does the falsity of a First Information Report regarding the majority of accused persons entitle the remaining accused to the grant of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to accused persons when the lower courts have refused it based on the specific circumstances of the case?
- AMIR KHAN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose from a domestic dispute where the petitioner was convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Illaqa Magistrate and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment, which sentence was subsequently enhanced by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision to imprisonment for life and a fine. The core legal question was whether an Additional Sessions Judge, exercising revisional powers, is competent to enhance a sentence beyond the sentencing powers of the trial Magistrate. The Peshawar High Court held that the Sessions Court and High Court in revision are not restricted by the trial court's sentencing limits, provided the offence is tried by a Magistrate empowered under Section 30 and Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and thus the Additional Sessions Judge had the legal competence to enhance the sentence. However, exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, the High Court found the enhanced sentence excessive and reduced it in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Whether an Additional Sessions Judge exercising revisional powers can enhance a sentence beyond the maximum sentencing powers of the trial Magistrate?
- Does Section 439(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict a Sessions Court from enhancing a sentence in revision beyond the trial court's limits?
- Can the High Court interfere with a sentence under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the sentence imposed by the lower courts does not meet the ends of justice?
- AMIR HATIM vs GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 899 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-02Read full judgment →
- AMIR FARAZ vs MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD.1982 PLC 1055 · Labour Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- AMIR DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs SIDDIQUE AND 5 Other1982 SCMR 242(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Letters Patent Appeal on merits in their absence. The petition was barred by 64 days. The petitioners contended that the limitation period should run from the date of their knowledge of the dismissal, as neither they nor their counsel were aware of the disposal. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the High Court's record showed a notice was sent to the petitioners' counsel by registered post acknowledgment due. Under the General Clauses Act, a presumption of service arises when a notice is sent by registered post. Since the counsel failed to file an affidavit denying receipt of the notice, the presumption of service stood unrebutted. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does the period of limitation for filing an appeal run from the date of knowledge of a judgment if the party claims they were not heard?
- Can a presumption of service of notice sent by registered post be rebutted without an affidavit from the addressee denying receipt?
- What is the legal effect of sending a notice to a counsel by registered post acknowledgment due under the General Clauses Act?
- AMIR DIN AND 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 5 Other1982 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition seeking to challenge an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur dated 5th November 1974, which dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal on merits in the absence of the parties and their counsel. The petition was barred by 64 days, and the petitioners contended that limitation should run from the date of knowledge since they were unaware of the disposal. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing the appeal should start from the date of knowledge when notice of the hearing had been sent by registered post. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed, noting that notice was duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, raising a statutory presumption of service under the General Clauses Act, which remained unrebutted as the counsel failed to file an affidavit denying service. The key principle laid down is that the presumption of due service of notice sent by registered post stands unless effectively rebutted by proper evidence.
Questions settled- Does the period of limitation for an appeal start from the date of knowledge when a party claims ignorance of a judgment passed in their absence?
- What is the effect of sending a hearing notice by registered post acknowledgment due regarding the presumption of its receipt?
- Is an assertion of non-service sufficient without a supporting affidavit from the counsel?
- AMIR BUX vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29Read full judgment →
- AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN vs HAQ NA WAZ KHAN1982 CLC 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- AMINULLAH vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of two brothers for the murder of their father. The core legal question addressed is the extent of the burden of proof on an accused person setting up a plea of alibi under Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Court held that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts. Regarding the plea of alibi, the Court ruled that an accused is not required to prove the plea affirmatively beyond reasonable doubt; rather, the accused need only produce evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable possibility of the alibi, thereby creating a reasonable doubt as to their presence at the crime scene. Applying this principle, the Court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the ocular testimony and motive to be unreliable and lacking independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting both appellants by giving them the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution failed to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when a plea of alibi is raised in a criminal trial?
- What is the standard of proof required for an accused to successfully establish a plea of alibi?
- Is an accused entitled to an acquittal if their alibi evidence raises a reasonable doubt about their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the prosecution case lacks independent corroboration and contains significant discrepancies?
- AMINULLAH AND Another vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE I1, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 73 · Balochistan High Court · 1959-08-21Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHER1982 CLC 535 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs PETROCON LIMITED AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 634 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 570 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN DURRANI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB ETC.S1982 SCMR 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service as Superintendent of Central Jail, Mianwali. The dismissal followed the escape of Indian convicts of sensitive nature during his tenure, which was attributed to gross negligence and inefficiency, including failure to follow the Jail Manual and directions regarding segregation and night inspections. The core legal questions involved whether the Inquiry Officer was legally bound to summon all requested defence witnesses under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, and whether the penalty of dismissal warranted interference under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Inquiry Officer is not bound to summon every requested witness or document unless considered necessary, particularly where facts are established and admissions exist in the accused's own explanation, and that the quantum of punishment does not raise a substantial question of law of public importance. The key principle laid down is that an inquiry officer has discretion to dispense with unnecessary defence evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence and quantum of service penalties are primarily matters for the departmental authorities and the Services Tribunal.
Questions settled- Is an Inquiry Officer legally bound to summon every witness or document requested by an accused civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Does the quantum of punishment imposed on a civil servant raise a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can admissions and assertions made in a civil servant's written explanation be used to draw inferences of guilt and dispense with further defence evidence?
- AMANULLAH AND Others vs RAIS MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND Other1982 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained a status quo regarding the construction of an open-air cinema in Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan. The respondents had initially challenged the legality of a No-Objection Certificate granted to the appellants for the cinema's construction through a Constitutional Petition. However, by the time the petition was filed, the construction was already complete. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had applied correct legal principles in granting the status quo order, particularly given the completed state of the construction. Upon review, and noting that the respondents did not appear to contest the appeal and the Assistant Advocate-General for the Punjab government also declined to contest it, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court noted that the cinema had been operational since 1974. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, effectively resolving the dispute in favor of the appellants without an order as to costs.
Questions settled- Whether a status quo order is appropriate when the construction project in dispute is already completed?
- Can an appellate court set aside a status quo order if the respondents fail to contest the appeal?
- AMANAT KHAN vs GHULAM SARWAR1982 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession of land through pre-emption filed by the petitioner, Amanat Khan, against the respondent, Ghulam Sarwar. The core legal question was whether land classified as 'ghair mumkin' (uncultivable) could be considered part of a 'tenancy' for the purposes of exercising the right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The trial court and the appellate court had previously dismissed the suit regarding the land occupied by the respondent, finding him to be a tenant. The High Court upheld these decisions, holding that the statutory right of pre-emption conferred on a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, extends to all land comprised in the tenancy, not merely land under actual cultivation. The Court reasoned that since the revenue record designated the respondent as the tenant of the disputed land, including the 'ghair mumkin' portion, it fell within the scope of his tenancy. Consequently, the respondent possessed the superior right of pre-emption, and the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption conferred on a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 extend to land that is not under actual cultivation?
- Can 'ghair mumkin' land be considered part of a tenancy for the purpose of exercising pre-emption rights?