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.
- MEHAR KHAN vs YAQUB KHAN AND Another1981 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, converted into an appeal, arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondent accused of an offence under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is competent to grant an order of remand under section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session after the abolition of commitment proceedings by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, or whether such remand power vests exclusively in the Court of Session. The Supreme Court held that after the omission of Chapter XVIII relating to commitment proceedings, a Magistrate taking cognizance under section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must apply his mind to determine if the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, and this process constitutes an 'inquiry' empowering the Magistrate to postpone or adjourn the same and remand the accused under section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down that Magistrates retain remand powers during this inquiry stage prior to sending the case to the Court of Session, setting aside the High Court's bail order.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate remand an accused to custody under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session after the abolition of commitment proceedings?
- Does the application of mind by a Magistrate to determine whether a case is triable exclusively by a Court of Session constitute an inquiry under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a Court of Session competent to pass an order of remand under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a case has been sent to it under section 190(3) of the said Code?
- Can a Magistrate be assumed to have taken cognizance of a case under clause (b) of section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when neither a complete nor an incomplete challan has been submitted?
- Mehar JALAL DIN AND 9 OTHERS vs ABDUL MAJID1981 CLC 288 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
- MEHAR ALI vs JUMMA KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1981 CLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
- MEENHON AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- MEDICAL EDUCATION UPLIFT FUND ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-DAY1981 PLC 229 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- MBSIRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD., KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR1981 PLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions challenged a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980. The core legal question was whether the word 'and' in the proviso, requiring a settlement to be 'announced and become effective on or after the first day of January, 1980' for an employer to claim a set-off against cost-of-living allowances, should be read as 'or' to allow set-off if only one condition is met. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the proviso is clear and unambiguous, requiring both conditions to be satisfied. The Court affirmed that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favor of employees and that a proviso, being a limitation on the main enactment, cannot be construed to enlarge its scope or nullify it. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that individual clauses of a settlement could be treated as separate, severable agreements, viewing the settlement as a composite 'package deal' that must be considered as a whole.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 require both the announcement and the effectiveness of a settlement to occur on or after January 1, 1980, to qualify for a set-off?
- Can the word 'and' in a statutory proviso be interpreted as 'or' in the absence of ambiguity?
- Should a collective bargaining settlement be treated as a composite package deal or as severable individual clauses for the purpose of statutory set-off?
- How should beneficial legislation intended for the welfare of workers be interpreted by the courts?
- Maulvi BILAL HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF LAW1981 PLD Peshawar 46 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MAULA BUX vs ROHRI CEMENT WORKS, ROHRI ,1981 PLC 623 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY1981 CLC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1981 CLC 694 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mats. AMNA BIBI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 688 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
- Master GHULAM RASUL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- MASTER FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs TARIQ SALEEM1981 CLC 759 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
- MASROOR HASAN AND ANOTHER vs ABBAS ALI KHAN1981 CLC 669 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi, directing the eviction of the appellants (tenant and occupant) on grounds of subletting and personal bona fide requirement of the landlord. The appellants challenged the findings, contending that permitting a relative (father-in-law) to use the premises did not constitute subletting and that a separate dismissed rent application regarding an adjoining shop disproved the landlord's personal need. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once unauthorized use by a third party is established, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove it does not constitute subletting or sharing of tenancy rights, irrespective of personal relations. Furthermore, the High Court held that evidence from unconsolidated parallel proceedings cannot be imported into another case. Finding that concurrent factual determinations of the courts below on subletting and personal requirement were supported by evidence and not perverse, the High Court declined to interfere in second appeal, while granting the appellants eight months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the tenant to disprove subletting or sharing of tenancy rights once it is established that a third party is using the rented premises?
- Does a close personal or familial relationship between the tenant and an occupant prevent an unauthorized occupation from being classified as subletting?
- Can evidence recorded in an unconsolidated rent case regarding a different tenement be considered in a separate rent proceeding between different parties?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting and personal requirement?
- MASHUQ ALI KHAN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 224 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- MASHKOOR SABRI vs ZAFAR MAHMOOD AND 12 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 546 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
- MASHA KHAN vs SELECTION COMMITTEE, BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND 21981 CLC 634 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAQSOOD HASAN NAQVI vs MESSRS NATIONAL BEVERAGE LTD., KARACHI , . (1981 PLC 714 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD KHAN AND Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1981 PLD Lahore 665 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL HUSSAIN vs PRESINDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT No, II AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 729 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL ELAHI CHEEMA vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 749 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-10-24Read full judgment →
- MANZUR Alias BHOLA AND Another vs THE STATE AND Another1981 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court canceling the bail granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had canceled the bail relying on the dying statement of the deceased. The petitioner contended that the motive was thin, prosecution witnesses were not supporting the case, and a co-accused had been falsely implicated. The Supreme Court held that the dying statement fully implicated the petitioner and it was premature at the bail stage to reject or accept the truthfulness of the dying statement, especially when no competent court had yet recorded a finding on the falsity of the implication. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the cancellation of bail and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused was connected with an offence punishable with death.
Questions settled- Whether a dying statement can form the basis for canceling bail at a pre-trial stage?
- Can the opinion of an investigating officer regarding false implication override a dying statement for the purpose of granting or canceling bail?
- MANZUR AHMAD vs The STATE1981 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a college student, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder of a fellow student during college union elections. The occurrence was witnessed by several college staff members, including the Principal, who apprehended the petitioner at the spot with a blood-stained knife. The petitioner admitted to the incident at trial but raised a plea of private defence, alleging that the deceased had attacked him first with a dagger. Both the trial court and the High Court rejected the defence version and upheld the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued for a re-appraisal of evidence and urged leniency based on a subsequent compromise between the families involving retaliatory murders. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no misreading of evidence or defect in the High Court judgment, but observed that the relevant authorities could consider the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in light of the compromise and the time spent as an under-trial prisoner.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence where the petitioner fails to point out any misreading or defect in the impugned judgment?
- Does the absence of injuries on the accused belie a plea of private defence?
- Can the relevant authorities consider the period spent in jail as an under-trial prisoner under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in view of a compromise between the parties?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND Another vs THE STATEPLD 1981 Lahore 196 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSAIN vs COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI DIVISION AND ANOTHER , _1981 PLC (C. S.) 644 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR AND Another vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-26Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED vs THE STATE AND 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 511 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS1981 CLC 2 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-07-30Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR & Co. TRANSPORT AND 3 Other vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, SHARAKPUR BRANCH, SHEIKHUPURA1981 PLD Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- MANTHAR vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 214 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR ALI AND Other vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Other .1981 PLD Supreme Court 331 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
- MANSHA AND Another vs THE STATE- Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- MANGHTA KHAN AND Other vs Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming a decree in a pre-emption suit in favour of the respondents regarding an agricultural land sale of 216 acres. The core legal questions involved whether the sale transaction was divisible to allow certain vendees the benefit of pre-emption exemption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act for Mangla Dam evictees, and whether paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (1959) rendered such sales void or precluded divisibility. The Supreme Court held that the sale transaction was divisible because the shares of all vendees were specified and contributions were made proportionate to their shares. Furthermore, paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (1959) does not bar the divisibility of a transaction or defeat the statutory exemption where the vendor disposes of her entire holding. The key principles laid down are that a sale deed containing specified shares and proportionate price contributions constitutes a divisible transaction, and that the validity of alienations under land reforms regulations does not preclude the application of pre-emption exemptions for displaced persons holding requisite certificates.
Questions settled- What are the essential conditions for treating a sale transaction as divisible for the purpose of pre-emption?
- Whether the possession of a prescribed certificate is an essential condition for claiming pre-emption exemption under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 for Mangla Dam evictees?
- Can paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (1959) operate to nullify a statutory exemption granted under the Punjab Pre-emption Act in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the receipt of a lump sum amount by the vendor negate the divisibility of a sale transaction where shares and proportionate price contributions are otherwise specified?
- MANAZAR HUSSAIN KAZMI AND Another vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT1981 PLD Lahore 594 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICE1981 CLC 284 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs S. M. YOUSAF KIRMANI /1981 PLC 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
- MANAGER (WORKSHOP), EQUIPMENT M. C. P. WORKSHOP vs AYAZ HUSSAIN, .(1981 PLC 949 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- MAMMA AND Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
- MALLA vs Mst. JAWAI ETC.1981 CLC 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-13Read full judgment →
- Malik PERVEZ vs MESSRS P. R. SILK MILLS, KARACHI1981 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- MALIK PARWEZ AKHTAR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND MINORITY AFFAIRS1981 SCMR 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former assistant in the Ministry of Religious Affairs, challenged the termination of his services. Following his termination, he filed a departmental representation, which the Ministry claimed to have rejected via a memorandum dated 9th March 1978. The petitioner contended he never received this communication and subsequently filed a second appeal to the Minister, which was rejected in 1979. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal as time-barred, noting that the petitioner failed to approach the Tribunal within the statutory period following the initial representation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and whether the second departmental appeal was legally permissible. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the petitioner was required to file an appeal with the Tribunal within thirty days after the expiry of the ninety-day statutory period for a departmental decision. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in official acts and held that the petitioner could not bypass statutory limitation periods by pursuing unauthorized appellate channels.
Questions settled- Does the presumption of regularity in official acts apply to the delivery of departmental communications?
- Can a civil servant file a second departmental appeal to circumvent statutory limitation periods for approaching a Service Tribunal?
- What is the correct procedure for a civil servant when a departmental representation remains undecided after the statutory ninety-day period?
- Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD vs WAPDA1981 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
- Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, ETC.S1981 P Cr. L J 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Erc,1981 PLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, SADDAR, SARGODHA AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Station House Officer to register a first information report (F.I.R.) based on the petitioner's counter-allegations against the police regarding an occurrence where an F.I.R. had already been registered against the petitioner's driver under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R. containing a counter-version of the same occurrence must be registered, and whether the High Court should issue a constitutional writ of mandamus to compel police registration when alternative remedies exist. The Lahore High Court held that while the law does not absolutely bar a counter F.I.R. for distinct grievances arising from the same occurrence, relief under constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary. The Court ruled that where allegations are directed against the police officers themselves and alternative, more efficacious remedies such as filing a direct private complaint before a Magistrate are available, a writ of mandamus to compel registration of an F.I.R. need not issue. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a second F.I.R. containing a counter-version of the same occurrence can be registered under the law?
- Is the registration of a counter F.I.R. an absolute right of an accused party?
- Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an F.I.R. when the allegations are directed against the police officers themselves?
- Does filing a direct complaint before a Magistrate provide a more efficacious remedy than seeking police registration of a case?
- Malik MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs HOME SECRETARY, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C.S.) 679 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- Malik KHUDA BAKHSH ETC. vs Syed HAMID ALI SHAH1981 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
- Malik KHUDA BAKHSH AND Another vs Syed HAMID ALI SHAH1981 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition regarding the grant of a temporary injunction in a land dispute. The core legal question concerns the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in interfering with the discretionary orders of subordinate courts relating to temporary injunctions. The Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction is meant primarily for correcting jurisdictional errors rather than discretionary decisions, unless the discretion has been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily, which was not the case here. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the revision but directed the trial court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the long-pending suit. The key principle laid down is that interference in revision with discretionary orders of subordinate courts is unwarranted unless such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or fancifully.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with the discretionary exercise of power by a subordinate court regarding temporary injunctions?
- When does the exercise of discretion by a first appellate court warrant interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Malik GHULAM JILANI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 6 OTHERS1981 CLC 716 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM HAIDER vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1981 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate court's decision that reversed a trial court decree allowing the petitioner to correct his date of birth in his service record. The core legal questions were whether the doctrine of estoppel precluded the petitioner from relying on his birth certificate to correct his service record, and whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct the appellate court's misinterpretation of the law. The Court held that the doctrine of estoppel was inapplicable because the petitioner’s initial recruitment was based on a medical examination, not on any representation made by the petitioner. Consequently, the appellate court acted illegally by misapplying the principle of estoppel, warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction. The Court further affirmed that civil courts possess the jurisdiction to determine a person's date of birth, as this is not a term or condition of service exclusively reserved for the Service Tribunal until the retirement date is at issue. The petition was allowed, restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of estoppel apply to a civil servant seeking to correct their date of birth when their initial recruitment was based on a medical examination?
- Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to determine the correct date of birth of a civil servant?
- Can the High Court interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an appellate court misinterprets the doctrine of estoppel?
- Does the limitation period for a suit to correct a date of birth in service records commence from the date of recruitment or from the date the government refuses to correct the record?
- Malik ABDUL QADOOS vs Mst. MARYAM BIBI AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- MAJOR-GENERAL (R) TAJIAMAL HUSSAIN MALIK vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGHDEFENCE SECRETARY AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
- MAJOR (RETD.) ABDUL H AYEE vs LT. COL. (RETD.) Raja GHULAM MURTAZA AND Other1981 SCMR 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant challenging concurrent findings of eviction passed against him on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was upheld in appeal by the District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the High Court through the dismissal of a constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent factual findings regarding the non-payment of rent by a tenant can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in a petition for special leave. The Supreme Court held that the question of payment of rent is essentially one of fact and cannot be interfered with unless the judgments below suffer from a legal or factual infirmity. The petition was dismissed in limine, while granting the petitioner a three-month grace period to vacate the premises upon certain undertakings. The key principle laid down is that pure questions of fact concurrently determined by lower forums regarding tenancy default will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of legal or factual infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding default in the payment of rent can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Can a plea of payment of rent in cash without receipts be accepted when rejected by the lower courts based on cogent evidence?
- MAJOR (R) AHMAD KHAN BHATTI vs Mst. MASOOLIA FATIMI1981 PLD Karachi 398 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a bungalow, evidenced by a receipt dated 10-4-1976. The defendant contested the claim, arguing the receipt was not a concluded contract as it contemplated a future formal agreement, and that the plaintiff acted as an estate broker for an undisclosed purchaser rather than in his personal capacity. The court held that the receipt contained all essential terms of a valid contract, including the price and property description. It established that where a document contemplates a future formal agreement, it is a matter of construction whether that future document is a condition precedent or merely an expression of desire regarding the transaction's execution. Finding the latter, the court ruled the receipt was a binding contract. Furthermore, the court determined the plaintiff acted in his personal capacity and that time was not of the essence in this contract for the sale of immovable property. Consequently, the court decreed specific performance, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration.
Questions settled- Does a document contemplating the execution of a future formal agreement constitute a binding contract?
- Is time considered of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property in the absence of a specific stipulation?
- What criteria determine whether a preliminary receipt for the sale of property is a concluded contract?
- MAJNOO vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 463 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- MAJID ALI vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KARACHI AND 21981 CLC 1255 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAIRAJ AHMAD JUN EJO vs THE PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITTARY COURT No. 1, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 617 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- MAHMUD AHMAD BUTT AND Another vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1981 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODAH YUSUF NIZAMI AND 6 OTHERS vs S. HOODA AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ELAHI vs Haji GHULAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against the respondents, seeking to restrain them from raising construction on land the petitioner claimed was unpartitioned joint property. The petitioner asserted that as a co-owner, the respondents could not build without formal partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the petitioner's claim of purchase fictitious. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the land had already been partitioned. The High Court affirmed this, noting admissions by the petitioner that the property was not joint and that specific portions had been sold to various owners. Before the Supreme Court, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the construction was already complete, rendering the injunction moot. The Supreme Court upheld this objection, noting that the grant of a permanent injunction is a discretionary relief. Given the factual admissions that the land was not joint and the construction was complete, the Court held that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a permanent injunction be granted to restrain construction on land where the property is not held jointly?
- Does the completion of construction render a suit for permanent injunction against such construction moot?
- Is the grant of a permanent injunction a discretionary relief for the court?
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND Another1981 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Mahmood Ahmad, a former Meter Inspector whose services were terminated by the Water and Power Development Authority under Section 17(3-A) of the WAPDA Act. His subsequent appeal before the Service Tribunal was dismissed in default due to non-appearance, and a restoration application was likewise rejected after the Tribunal noted a prior warning against default. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal was justified in refusing to recall its ex parte dismissal order where the counsel was busy elsewhere and the junior counsel arrived late. The Supreme Court held that no fault could be found with the Tribunal's order given the circumstances and the prior warning. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down that an ex parte dismissal by a service tribunal for non-prosecution, following a clear warning against default, warrants no interference by the apex court under the given circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in refusing to set aside an ex parte dismissal order when the appellant's counsel fails to appear due to engagement in the High Court?
- Does a service tribunal have the discretion to refuse the recall of an ex parte order given after a prior warning against default?
- MAHANDA AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and attempted murder following a violent clash between two family branches over land. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether the appellants had successfully raised a plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to unreliable ocular evidence that was inconsistent with medical findings and the severe injuries sustained by the appellants. The Court found that the prosecution witnesses had engaged in perjury and that the trial and appellate courts had ignored critical discrepancies. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case and that the appellants' plea of self-defence was reasonably possible. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the accused need not prove their defence beyond a reasonable doubt; if the court finds a reasonable possibility that the defence version is true, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Is the plea of self-defence established if the court finds a reasonable possibility that the defence version might be true?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence is fundamentally inconsistent with the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the accused?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove the plea of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt?
- MACHHI AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 575 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-14Read full judgment →
- M. YOUNIS MALIK vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS DEPUTY1981 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the executive order impounding the petitioner’s passport without prior notice. The core legal question concerned the extent of executive discretion in restricting a citizen's right to travel abroad and whether such administrative actions are subject to judicial review. The Court held that the impounding order was invalid and unsustainable. It established that while the State may regulate travel, the right to travel is a facet of personal liberty protected under the Constitution. Consequently, executive authority cannot exercise unbridled discretion; any action curtailing this liberty must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of the Passports Act, 1974. Specifically, the power to impound a passport without notice is limited to cases involving subversion or prejudice to national interests, neither of which existed here. The Court further affirmed that all administrative tribunals and functionaries exercising powers affecting a citizen's liberty, property, or reputation must pass "speaking orders" providing valid, justifiable reasons for their decisions. Such executive actions are justiciable under the Court's constitutional jurisdiction, ensuring that no citizen is hindered in lawful activities without due process of law.
Questions settled- Is the right to travel abroad a protected facet of personal liberty under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can the executive impound a citizen's passport without providing a show-cause notice?
- Are administrative orders affecting a citizen's liberty or reputation subject to judicial review?
- Must executive authorities provide valid reasons for their decisions in a speaking order?
- M. U. SHAIKH vs MESSRS GLAX0 LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD R0, . (1981 PLC 771 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-25Read full judgment →
- M. U. A. KHAN vs M. SULTAN AND Another1981 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from the dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Chief Inspector of Mines, Government of West Pakistan. The appellant, a mine owner, sought a writ of quo warranto against the respondent's appointment, contending that the rules prescribing qualifications were ultra vires the Mines Act for lacking Mining Board approval, and that the respondent lacked a recognized post-graduate degree in Mining Engineering. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the writ petition under the 1962 Constitution without the petitioner being an aggrieved party, and the validity of the respondent's appointment under the statutory framework and recruitment rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a petition for quo warranto regarding a public office may be brought by any person, as matters of public importance do not require the petitioner to be an aggrieved party. The Court further held that the failure to frame subsidiary regulations under section 29 of the Mines Act does not stultify the parent statute or prevent the government from appointing a duly qualified person under section 4, and that the respondent was duly qualified and validly appointed under the applicable recruitment rules and constitutional provisions.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner must be an aggrieved party to maintain a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto in respect of a public office under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- Does the failure of the Provincial Government to frame subsidiary regulations under section 29 of the Mines Act render the parent statute unworkable and prevent the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Mines under section 4?
- Whether an appointment to a statutory public office is validly made when the appointee holds the requisite qualifications under applicable recruitment rules framed pursuant to constitutional powers?
- Can the recruitment of a candidate with a foreign university degree be deemed to satisfy recognition requirements when both the Provincial Government and the Public Service Commission have concurred in accepting the qualification?
- M. SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN, ADVOCATE vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 480 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- M. SHAFIQUE SHAH AND ANOTHER vs IRSHAD BEGUM AND 8 OTHERS1981 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from execution proceedings where a house was put to auction and purchased by respondent No. 9. The petitioners' objection petition against the sale was rejected by the executing Court and the appellate court for failure to deposit twenty percent of the sale price prior to filing objections, as required by the second proviso to rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question is whether the executing Court must first specify the amount of deposit under the proviso before an objector can be penalized for non-deposit, and whether the objection petition was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the phrase "as the Court may direct" applies to both the deposit amount and the furnishing of security, meaning the executing Court must direct the specific amount not exceeding twenty percent before dismissing a petition. However, the Court ultimately upheld the dismissal because the objection petition was time-barred under Article 166 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act 1908. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement to deposit an amount under the second proviso to rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires a prior direction specifying the amount by the executing Court?
- Does the phrase "as the Court may direct" in the second proviso to rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the deposit of up to twenty percent of the sale price?
- Can a plea of limitation involving a pure question of law be raised for the first time during revision proceedings?
- What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside an execution sale under the Limitation Act 1908?
- M. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs M. S. SULTAN1981 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 by the respondent-landlord, seeking the tenant-petitioner's eviction from a shop on the ground of personal requirement for his son. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction, and both the Additional District Judge and the High Court dismissed the subsequent appeals, affirming the Rent Controller's order. The core legal question raised by the petitioner was whether the failure of the landlord's son (for whose benefit the shop was sought) to appear as a witness was fatal to establishing the personal requirement ground. The Supreme Court held that there is no statutory requirement mandating that the person for whose benefit the premises are required must be produced as a witness. The Court held that it is sufficient if enough evidence is brought on record to sustain the finding. Affirming the concurrent findings of fact below, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, while granting the tenant four months to vacate.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a landlord to produce the family member for whose personal use premises are sought as a witness in an ejectment petition?
- Can a finding of personal requirement under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 be sustained on evidence provided by the landlord without calling the actual beneficiary?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in rent matters without strong grounds?
- M. M. MALIK vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 157 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-20Read full judgment →
- M. M. KAZAI vs AERO TRAVELS, KARACHI1981 CLC 1425 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
- M. KABUT KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNOR, CADET COLLEGE, KOHAT1981 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-04Read full judgment →
- M. K. KHAKWANI vs Mst. SHAHEEN1981 CLC 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- M. Enver Shaukat vs Federation of Pakistan and another1981 PLC (C. S.) 15 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
- M. ANWAR BAIG vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- M. ABDUL LATIF vs M. PARACHA AND Other1981SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a Food Grain Inspector against a High Court decision dismissing his constitutional writ petition. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of Police Officers (a Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector) attached to the Anti-Smuggling Mobile Team to investigate embezzlement allegations against him under corruption laws. The petitioner contended that under Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, police officers below the rank of Inspector cannot investigate such offences, and further argued that under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961, only members of the Anti-Corruption Establishment were authorized to investigate. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions, noting that Section 5-A expressly allows officers below Inspector rank to investigate if First Class Magistrate permission is obtained, which had been granted. Additionally, Section 8 of the Ordinance provides that its provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, other laws. Finding no merit in the challenge, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a police officer below the rank of Inspector investigate an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 if permission from a First Class Magistrate is obtained?
- Does the creation of the Anti-Corruption Establishment under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961 bar general police officers from investigating corruption offences?
- M. A. LATIF FARUQUI/Defendant vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN/1981 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Inter-Court Appeal challenges a Single Judge’s order dismissing an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the appellant established "sufficient cause" for the non-appearance of his counsel at the hearing. The Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, affirming the lower court's refusal to set aside the decree. The Court reasoned that the appellant’s counsel had a professional duty to verify hearing dates through the Weekly Cause List and daily cause lists, and the excuse regarding non-membership in the High Court Bar Association was invalid. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when multiple advocates represent a party, each must satisfactorily explain their absence. The key principle laid down is that "sufficient cause" is not susceptible to a rigid definition and must be determined based on the specific facts of each case, but a party cannot rely on their counsel's negligence or lack of diligence to excuse absence when reasonable precautions were not taken to ascertain the hearing date.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a lawyer to check the Weekly Cause List constitute 'sufficient cause' to set aside an ex parte decree?
- Is a party entitled to have an ex parte decree set aside if their counsel was negligent in failing to appear?
- When multiple advocates represent a party, must each advocate provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence to set aside an ex parte decree?
- M. A. KHAN vs Mst. MASOODA SHAHEEN1981 CLC 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD NA WAZ vs L.G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB ETC. , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 492 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- M A QBOOL AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, SAROODHA, ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 844 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- LUTFE ALI KHAN vs SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB1981 PLC (C. S.) 609 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- LTHE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY To THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOUSING & PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND 2 Other vs Ch. ZAHOOR ELAHI AND 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 696 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- LT. COL. Mirza MUNAWAR BEG ETC. vs Mst. HASSAN BIBI AND Other1981SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the refusal of the Lahore High Court to restore a writ petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the omission of the petitioner's counsel's full name from the court's cause list constituted sufficient cause for his absence, thereby justifying the restoration of the petition. The Supreme Court observed that the counsel's name was listed incompletely as 'Abdul Majeed Khan' instead of his full name 'Abdul Majeed Khan Lashari,' which appeared in previous lists. The Court held that this discrepancy in the cause list was a valid reason for the counsel's failure to appear, as practitioners rely on their full names to identify their cases. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders refusing restoration and directed that the writ petition be heard on its merits. The key principle laid down is that where a procedural default, such as non-appearance, is caused by an error or omission in the official cause list, the court should exercise its discretion to restore the matter to prevent the denial of justice.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a counsel's full name from the cause list constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Is a court justified in refusing to restore a petition dismissed for non-prosecution when the default was caused by an error in the court's own cause list?
- LOUNG vs The STATE1981 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- LIMO KHAN AND Another vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 31981 PLD Karachi 114 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order of the Member, Federal Land Commission, which declared a sale of agricultural land void under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115). The petitioners had entered into a registered agreement of sale with the landholder prior to the crucial date of December 20, 1971, paid part of the consideration, and obtained possession, but the formal registered sale deed was executed after that date. The Federal Land Commission declared the transaction void solely because the sale deed was executed post-crucial date. The High Court of Sindh held that paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation contemplates not only completed transfers but also transactions creating any right or interest in land. An agreement of sale accompanied by delivery of possession creates a beneficial interest and valuable rights under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Consequently, such transactions can be scrutinized and confirmed as bona fide, and the impugned order was declared to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement of sale executed before the crucial date under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972, where possession was delivered but the formal sale deed was registered after that date, can be protected as a bona fide transaction?
- Does an agreement of sale accompanied by delivery of possession create a sufficient 'right or interest' in land to be cognizable under paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
- Can the Land Commission authorities declare a transaction void solely on the ground that the formal registered sale deed was executed after the crucial date, ignoring the de facto transfer of possession and payment of consideration?
- LIAQUATABAD SUPER CO-OPERATIVE MARKET LTD. vs THE MAYOR OF KARACHI1981 PLD Karachi 613 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATEPLD 1981 Lahore 196 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT vs The STATE1981 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by special leave, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the appellant's conviction and death sentence for the murder of two minor students. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular testimony, specifically whether the witnesses were 'interested' or 'chance' witnesses whose evidence should be discarded. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the site plan, the presence of a lantern, and the nature of the injuries, which indicated the attack lasted sufficient time for the witnesses to observe the assailant. The Court held that the witnesses were credible, their presence was natural given the circumstances, and the motive was established. The Court affirmed that the lower courts correctly applied legal principles in appraising the evidence and rejected the appellant's plea of alibi. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appellant's guilt and the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a witness be rejected solely on the ground that they are related to the victim?
- Does the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime become improbable if they are a neighbor?
- Is the failure to mention a specific detail in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to discredit a witness?
- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses?
- LIAQAT MANZOOR vs GENERAL MANAGER, FRONTIER CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.1981 PLC 272 · Labour Court · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners were convicted of murder by the Sessions Court, Sahiwal, and their convictions and death sentences were upheld by the Lahore High Court. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the ocular evidence and attempting to introduce additional evidence regarding the alleged enmity between the witnesses and a third party, Muhammad Shafi. The core legal questions were whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioners were sustainable and whether the request to introduce additional evidence at the Supreme Court stage should be granted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on credible ocular testimony, which remained unshaken. The Court further held that the request to produce additional evidence was procedurally barred as it was not raised in the lower courts, and the documents were irrelevant to the case. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not entertain requests for additional evidence that could have been produced at the trial stage, particularly when such evidence lacks relevance to the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can additional evidence be produced for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not requested in the trial or High Court?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Is the mere allegation of enmity between prosecution witnesses and a third party sufficient to discredit eyewitness testimony in a murder case?
- LATIF AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 108 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
- LATI F vs Mst. HASHMI KHATOON1981 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's second appeal by the Sind High Court, upholding the tenant's eviction for default in rent payment. The core legal question concerned whether the tenant had been validly served with the statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether he had committed default in paying rent. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the service of notice had attained finality when the petitioner allowed an earlier High Court decision on that issue to become final, and since the petitioner failed to pay rent subsequent to the notice, the eviction order was lawfully maintained. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot reagitate an issue that has attained finality through a prior unappealed appellate adjudication in the same proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can challenge the service of a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 after an earlier finding on the same issue has attained finality?
- Does failure to tender rent after the service of a statutory notice under Section 30 constitute valid grounds for eviction by the Rent Controller?
- LASHKARI AND 4 Other vs THE STATEPLD 1981 Karachi I · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- LARKANA SUGAR MILLS, NAUDERO vs EMPLOYEES' UNION , .1981 PLC 636 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, LOWER SIND BARRAGE, HYDERABAD vs KAMBER1981 CLC 556 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the government for a channel project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation based on agricultural land rates, ignoring the existence of fruit-bearing mango trees. The respondent, the landowner, challenged this award, asserting the land was garden land and seeking higher compensation. The District Court enhanced the compensation, valuing the land as garden land and calculating the value of the mango trees based on capitalized net income. On appeal, the Sindh High Court affirmed the decision. The Court held that garden land must be valued according to its specific potential and nature, not as ordinary agricultural land. It endorsed the capitalization method, valuing fruit-bearing trees at twenty years' annual rental. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while compensation must be adequate, it is subject to the statutory cap under Section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, preventing awards exceeding the claimant's initial demand. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the principle that compensation must fully reimburse the loss for expropriated property.
Questions settled- Whether garden land can be valued as agricultural land for the purpose of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- What is the appropriate method for valuing fruit-bearing trees on acquired land?
- Does the statutory limit in Section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 prevent a court from awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the interested person?
- Does the definition of 'land' under Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include standing trees?
- LAL vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND 3 Others S1981 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →