Summary: Evacuee land vested with state on migration of non-Muslims to India- Once a land treated as evacuee, its status can only be changed by the custodian of Evacuee Properties in accordance with law- Custodian Chief Settlement Commissioner vide notification dated 10.02.1948 granted evacuee lands to Forest Department which notification was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan- Two Courts below entertained the suit of persons regarding evacuee land and decreed the suit which concurrent findings have no backing of law and same are reversed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 115:Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by revisional court---Perversity and misreading of evidence---Judgments and decrees of the trial and appellate courts decreeing plaintiffs' suit for declaration, possession, and mandatory injunction were set aside by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. on the ground of blatant misreading and non-reading of evidence and failure to consider binding legal principles---Respondents/plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of suit land allegedly mortgaged by non-Muslim evacuees prior to partition---Key documentary evidence, including notifications and revenue records, produced by Forest Department was not appreciated by courts below---High Court held that where judgments are perverse and contrary to record, revisional jurisdiction can be validly exercised to correct miscarriage of justice.Nazim-ud-Din v. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar 2016 SCMR 24 relied upon.(b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 24 & Public Interest Doctrine:Public property---Judicial obligation to safeguard state assets---Suit land, admittedly a public asset owned by the Forest Department, could not be allotted or transferred without adherence to legal provisions---High Court reiterated that courts are custodians of public interest and state property, and must exercise extraordinary caution in such matters---Any decree adversely affecting public land must be supported by lawful entitlement and proven claim---Civil courts cannot ignore material legal developments merely on the basis of pleadings.Provincial Government v. Shabbir Hussain PLD 2005 SC 337 and Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423 discussed.(c) Evacuee Property Laws----Nature of ownership---Jurisdiction of civil court---Evacuee property---Vesting with government---Limitations on challenge---Land originally owned by non-Muslim evacuees at partition was validly transferred to the Forest Department by the Custodian of Evacuee Property vide notification dated 10.02.1948---Payment of consideration by Forest Department acknowledged by Board of Revenue in 1970s---Such land formed part of compensation pool and could not be reclaimed through civil suits---Civil courts lack jurisdiction to question treatment of property as evacuee land or transactions concluded under evacuee laws---Any claim regarding such properties must be routed through the Custodian or Notified Officer under relevant evacuee laws.Member BOR v. Mst. Siddiqan 2015 SCMR 1721, PLD 2003 Lahore 441, and Azizuddin v. Muhammad Ismail 1985 SCMR 666 relied upon.(d) Forest Act, 1927----S. 38 & Protected Forest Land:Allotment embargo---Binding effect of departmental notifications---Notification dated 27.02.1965 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner placed a complete bar on allotment of evacuee land in possession of the Forest Department under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme---Such embargo applied to both notified and unnotified forest land---Any order or allotment made in violation of said notification was declared illegal and void---Respondents' claim based on possession and decrees obtained without impleading Forest Department was found to be ineffective and non-binding.Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Mahmood Shah 1991 SCMR 1426, Masooda Begum v. Govt. of Punjab PLD 2003 SC 90, and Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah's case 2017 SCMR 172 discussed.(e) Evidence Act (I of 1872)----Admissibility of documents---Requirement of proper proof---Documents (Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.12) relied upon by respondents/plaintiffs were tendered by counsel rather than by the witnesses themselves---Held, such documents lacked probative value and were liable to be excluded from consideration---It is a mandatory requirement that party producing documents must do so in their own statement to allow opportunity of cross-examination by adverse party.Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715 and Rustam v. Jehangir (deceased) 2023 SCMR 730 followed.----Disposition: Civil Revision Allowed---Judgments and Decrees of Courts Below Set Aside---Suit Dismissed.

Summary: Regular first appeal, against judgment and decree dated 12.07.16

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioners, a mother and her two minor sons, filed a writ petition seeking an enhancement in the maintenance allowance granted by the Family Court. The minors’ father (respondent) was ordered to pay maintenance by the Family Court, but the father appealed, resulting in a reduction of the maintenance amount by the Appellate Court. The petitioners challenged the Appellate Court's decision, arguing that it did not properly account for the father’s financial situation or the minors' needs. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Appellate Court's decision to reduce the maintenance allowance for the minors was justified based on the evidence and the father's financial status. ----2- Whether the maintenance allowance granted to the minors adequately covers their needs, considering their education, standard of living, and the father's financial capacity. ----3- Whether the income and resources of the paternal grandfather can be taken into consideration for determining the minors' maintenance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the Appellate Court failed to maintain the proper balance between the needs of the minors and the father’s financial situation. The court noted that several aspects of the evidence, including the father’s income, bonuses, and family status, were not fully considered by the Appellate Court. The court reaffirmed that the obligation to maintain children lies primarily with the father, not the grandfather, unless both the father and mother are indigent. In this case, the father, who is employed as a Deputy Inspector General of Police, is financially stable and thus responsible for the minors' maintenance. The court emphasized that the father’s bonuses, perks, and other income sources should be factored into determining the maintenance amount. Since the father did not deny receiving these additional payments, the court held that the minors were entitled to a higher maintenance allowance. The court increased the maintenance allowance to Rs. 40,000 per month for each minor, with a 10% annual increase, from the date already determined by the Appellate Court. -----Citations/Precedents: Nazia Bibi and Others v. Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and Others (PLD 2018 Lahore 916) Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 557) Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 Others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 760)

Summary: Background: The case involves the appellant, who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge MCTC, Dir Upper, for various criminal offenses, including attempted murder, abduction, and illegal possession of a firearm. The appellant, along with co-accused, entered the complainant's house and attempted to abduct his sister, who resisted and was subsequently shot and injured. The appellant was absconding for over 21 years before being arrested and brought to trial. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was guilty of attempting to murder the injured witness. 2- Whether the appellant was guilty of abduction and intending to contract an illegal marriage. 3- Whether the evidence presented, including transposed statements from co-accused trials, was admissible and sufficient for conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the following reasoning: --Attempted Murder: The medical evidence and the testimony of the injured witness were found credible. The injuries and the circumstances of the shooting corroborated the charges of attempted murder. Abduction and Illegal Marriage: The consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses and the injured witness supported the prosecution's narrative of the abduction attempt and the intent to force a marriage. --Evidence Admissibility: The court found that the transposed statements from the trials of the co-accused were admissible under Section 512 of the Cr.P.C and Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. These provisions allow for the use of such evidence when the original witnesses are unavailable, and the transpositions were properly executed. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's objections, and upheld the sentences imposed by the trial court. ----Citations/Precedents PLD 2010 SC 612 (Mir Shakeelur Rahman vs. Yahya Bakhtiar) 2022 SCMR 1148 (Khalid Mehmood alias Khaloo v. The State) 2018 SCMR 71 (Muhammad Siddique vs. The State) 2009 PCrLJ 919 FSC (Tanveer Ahmad vs. The State) 1986 SCMR 446 (Rehmat Ali vs. The State) 2023 SCMR 831 (Aqil vs. The State) 1996 SCMR 908 (Muhammad Iqbal vs. The State) PLD 2003 SC 396 (Naeem Akhtar vs. The State) 2010 SCMR 1025 (Faisal Mehmood vs. The State) 2011 SCMR 460 (Muhammad Ilyas vs. The State)