| Case ID |
0afdf1e2-e112-46dd-ba94-b1c36f47d00e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.51 of 1987 |
| Decision Date |
May 11, 1991 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the decision of the Lahore High Court regarding Civil Appeal No.51 of 1987, which had upheld the High Court's judgment that deemed Muhammad Sharif an imposter and a local resident, thereby invalidating the Border Area Allotment Committee's order to cancel his land allotment and reallocate it to the petitioner, Bhag Mal. The Supreme Court held that the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to the proceedings before the Border Area Committee, which functions as a quasi-judicial authority rather than a court. Consequently, the High Court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the merits without assuming the applicability of the Evidence Act and C.P.C., and with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Appeal No.51 of 1987, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a pivotal judgment on May 11, 1991, addressing significant issues related to land allotment disputes under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959. The petitioner, Bhag Mal, contested the cancellation of a land allotment originally granted to Muhammad Sharif by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The Committee had later revoked this allotment, declaring Sharif an imposter and reallocating the land to Bhag Mal based on allegations of fraud.
The Lahore High Court had previously upheld the Committee's decision, applying provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to the Committee's proceedings. However, Bhag Mal appealed this decision, leading the Supreme Court to reassess the applicability of these laws to the Border Area Committee's administrative actions.
The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the Border Area Committee, vested with quasi-judicial powers, constituted a court under the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code. Referencing key precedents such as Das Dewan v. Nazir Beg PLD 1970 Lah. 790 and Khadim Mohyuddin and others v. Rehmat Ali Nagra and another PLD 1965 SC 459, the Court emphasized that unless expressly stated, only specific provisions of these laws apply to quasi-judicial bodies. The Committee, while empowered to conduct inquiries and enforce attendance, does not equate to a full-fledged court with comprehensive judicial authority.
The Court concluded that the Lahore High Court erred in applying the full breadth of the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code to the Committee's administrative procedures. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, remanding the case for reevaluation without presupposing the applicability of these laws. This judgment underscores the nuanced boundaries between administrative authorities and judicial oversight in Pakistan's legal framework, ensuring that quasi-judicial bodies operate within their intended legal confines while safeguarding principles of fairness and justice in land allotment disputes. The decision remains a cornerstone in Pakistani jurisprudence, particularly in the realms of administrative and land law, highlighting the importance of precise statutory interpretation and the delineation of powers among different legal bodies. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Lahore High Court,
Border Area Allotment Committee,
Revenue authorities
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.,
SAAD SAOOD, JAN,
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
BHAG MAL
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 1676,
1991 SCMR 2118
|
| Other Citations |
Das Dewan v. Nazir Beg PLD 1970 Lah. 790,
Khadim Mohyuddin and other v. Rehmat Ali Nagra and another PLD 1965 SC 459,
Province of Punjab and others v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others 1986 SCMR 529,
Abdul Hamid v. Malik Karam Dad and 2 others PLD 1966 Lah. 16,
Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236,
Mian Rafi-ud-Din and 6 others v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 2 others PLD 1971 SC 252,
Sh. Ahmad Sadiq v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1974 SC 368,
Leonard Biermans' Workers Union v. Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and other AIR 1962 Cal. 375,
Messrs Ahmad Brothers v. Mahmoodul Hassan Khan PLD 1965 Kar. 83,
Abdul Hamid v. Malik Karam Dad (P.C.S). Election Tribunal, Rawalpindi and 2 others PLD 1966 Lah. 16,
Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst, Khurshid Begum PLD 1972 Lah. 603,
Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore AIR 1944 Lah. 353,
Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes; 11th Edn., p.32,
Mst. Moselle Elias v. Khawaja Ahmed Said PLD 1959 Kar. 760,
Said Hussain and others v. Mst. Mahboob Begum and another PLD 1970 Lah. 69,
Syed Haider Raza v. Syed Imam Ali and Rehabilitation Authority PLD 1961 Lah. 800,
Atehayya and another v. Gangayya ILR 15 Mad. 138, 47 IC 710,
Hari Khemu Gawali v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay and another PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 90,
Murli Das v. Achut Das AIR 1924 Lah. 493,
Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Messrs Kruddsons Ltd. PLD 1.974 SC 180,
Messrs Bengal Friends & Co., Dacca v. Messrs Gour Benode Saba & Co. Calcutta and another PLD 1969 SC 477,
Farokh Homi Irani v. Nargis Farokh Irani PLD 1963 Kar. 567,
Muhammad Shari v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Punjab), Lahore and another PLD 1976 Lah. 153,
Cheshire's Private International Law, 7th Edn., pp. 134 and 574,
Macfarlane v. Macartney (1921) 1 Ch. D 522,
Rousillon v. Rousillon (1880) 14 D 351,
Conflict of Law by the American Law Institute, Edn.1934, No.612, p.731,
Dr. Niaz Muhammad Mann v. Sh. Muhammad Ahmad 1988 SCMR 1016,
Nawab Din v. Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Punjab, Lahore and 4 others PLD 1979 SC 846,
Salah-ud-Din Butt v. Punjab Service Tribunal PLD 1989 SC 597,
Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd, v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 66,
Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal PLD 1984 SC 95,
Abdul Hamid v. Karam Dad PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah. 16,
Salah-ud-Din's case PLD 1988 SC 221
|
| Laws Involved |
West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959,
Evidence Act (I of 1872),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
Para. 14,
S.114,
Remaining provisions other than those mentioned in para. 14 of the Regulation and the Evidence Act, 1872
|