Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: DAD MUHAMMAD
1991 S C M R 1482
1991 S C M R 1482
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners
versus
DAD MUHAMMAD and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1‑Q of 1987, decided on 15th April, 1987.
(From the judgment/order of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 9th December, 1986 in C.P. No.1l of 1974).
Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 8(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Failure of Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction according to law‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Supreme Court after having gone through record of case in the light of arguments addressed by petitioners, agreed with views that prevailed with High Court in deciding case against petitioners‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 15th April, 1987.
ORDER
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Balochistan High Court, dated 9th 'December, 1986 by which a Constitution Petition filed by respondents 1 to 4 was allowed and the impugned orders of respondents 5 and 6 were set aside and the case between the parties was remanded to the Court of Qazi, Bori‑Sanjavi at Loralai, having jurisdiction under the Regulation of 1976, with the direction to adjudicate upon the matter in accordance with the provisions of the said Regulation.
The reasons that prevailed with the High Court in setting aside the impugned orders may be stated by reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which read as under:‑‑
"The respondent No.1 (respondent No.5 herein) also did not proceed according to law in the revision which was filed before him under section 49 of the F.C.R. Instead of deciding the point at issue one way or the other he simply called for a report from the Settlement Officer who, not having any legal capacity under the F.C.R., was not competent to give any opinion in the matter and the Commissioner also should not have acted on that opinion. The question before the respondent No.1 was whether to uphold the decision of the respondent No.2 or to set it aside as being against the provisions of subsection (3) of section 8 of the F.C.R. or to remand the case to him to give a clear finding. On the contrary the Commissioner held late Mekhtar and respondent No.3 as exclusive owners of disputed property and dismissed the revision petition improperly.
It was the duty of respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition according to law and we are compelled to accept this Constitutional petition on the simple ground that the respondent No.1 failed to exercise authority vested in him under the law and for the additional reason that the respondent No.2 also failed to adjudicate in the matter in accordance with law:"
After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we whole heartedly agree with the views that have prevailed with the learned High Court recorded above and there is therefore no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
H.B.T./M‑1432/S Petition dismissed.