Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TAJ MUHAMMAD SHAH VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER, NASIRABAD
1988 S C M R 1915
1988 S C M R 1915
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Syed TAJ MUHAMMAD SHAH‑‑Petitioner
versus
COMMISSIONER, NASIRABAD and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition far Leave to Appeal No.25‑9 of 1987, decided 22nd May, 1988.
(From the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 14‑4‑1987 passed in C.P.9 of 1987).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Orders without jurisdiction‑‑Setting aside of‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Appeal before Authority not competent‑‑Order accepting appeal found to be without jurisdiction‑ Constitutional petition challenging said order dismissed on other grounds mentioned in impugned judgment‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that having held that the order passed by said Authority was without jurisdiction, High Court should not have dismissed petition on extraneous considerations which were not relevant.
Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Yakub K.Eusufzai, A.‑G., Baluchistan for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1988.
ORDER S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner was granted land measuring 7.30 acres situate in Mauza Baro, Tehsil Jhatpat by the Deputy Commissioner/Land Reforms Officer, Nasirabad by order dated 12‑7‑1984 passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under paragraph 5‑A of the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The Deputy Commissioner, Nasirabad, was delegated all the powers exercisable by the Board of Revenue under paragraph 5‑A of the Regulation by the Government of Baluchistan by virtue of a notification No. CLP‑129/81, dated 15‑7‑1982 issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by paragraph 6‑A of the Regulation. The order of allotment/sale of land in favour of the petitioner was set aside by the Commissioner, Nasirabad, by his order dated 19‑1‑1987 on appeal by the respondent No.2. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. The main contention of the petitioner before the High Court was that the Commissioner, Nasirabad division, had no jurisdiction to hear any appeal from the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was passed by him as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue by virtue of the notification dated 15‑7‑1982 (referred to above). It was conceded before the learned High Court by the Advocate‑General as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent that the appeal of the second respondent before the Commissioner was not competent. Nonetheless, the constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court on the other ground mentioned in the impugned judgment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having held that the order passed by the Commissioner was without jurisdiction, the learned High Court should have allowed the petition and not dismissed it on extraneous considerations, which were not relevant.
3. The above contention requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5,000.
M.I./T‑27/S Leave granted.