Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------S.193---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Alternate remedy, availability of---Appeal to Collector (Appeals)---Scope---Petitionerassailed order passed by Deputy Collector Customs (Adjudication) before the High Court onthe ground that it had paid duty/taxes as per calculation of the department, however, itsgoods were not being released---Validity---Specific remedy of appeal under S.193, CustomsAct, 1969, was available to the petitioner, which he had not availed rather instituted theconstitutional petition---Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution couldnot be invoked in the wake of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: FGEHF Case, seeking direction against change of plot

Summary: (a) Civil service-------Appointment to advertised post---Scope---Petitioner assailed objection raised in therejection list whereby his application for appointment was rejected on the ground of beingover-aged---Validity---Ex-army personnel could apply for the post, however their age mustnot be above forty years whereas the date of birth of petitioner as per his CNIC was aboutforty three years and he did not meet with the requisite requirement of the advertisement---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Mati Ullah and another v. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission,Peshawar through Chairman and 5 others 2020 PLC (C.S.) Note 28 and Waqas Aslam and 2others v. Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) through Chief Executive and 4 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 243 distinguished.(b) Civil service-------Appointment to advertised post---Scope---Petitioner assailed objection raised in therejection list whereby his application for appointment was rejected on the ground of nonattaching his CNIC with the application---Validity---Petitioner had only attachedacknowledgement receipt of the application form with the petition but had not attached theapplication form along with attested photocopy of the CNIC---Constitutional petition wasdismissed.Mati Ullah and another v. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission,Peshawar through Chairman and 5 others 2020 PLC (C.S.) Note 28 and Waqas Aslam and 2others v. Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) through Chief Executive and 4 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 243 distinguished.(c) Civil service-------Appointment to advertised post---Scope---Court cannot prescribe the eligibility orexperience qualifications and work experience in assessment of suitability of a particularnature of job and its scope in the context of a particular employer.(d) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Policy decision of government---Interference---Scope---High Court cannot interfere in the policy matters of a department---High Courtcannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise and acceptable orwhether better policy can be drafted---High Court can interfere if the policy framed isabsolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons or totally arbitrary, offending the basicrequirement of the Constitution---Department has to decide how and in what manner thereservation should be made and such a policy decision normally will not be open to challengesubject to its passing the test of reasonableness.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------Ss.42 & 52---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.70 & 72---Mutation, value of---Claimon basis of possession---Documentary evidence, preference of---Petitioners/plaintiffscontended that they were owners in possession of the suit property which was inherited fromtheir forefathers; that property of respondents/defendants was adjacent to the petitioners'property; that both parties constructed wall between their properties; that respondentsdishonestly tried to trespass and petitioner register complaint in Police station; hence thecause of action---Respondents alleged that inherited property was partitioned privately; eachsharer was in proprietary possession of his due share; inheritance mutation had not beenaffected; that predecessor of petitioners had exchanged the suit property with respondents;that on suit property father of respondents excavated tube-well for irrigating fruit orchard,they had been cultivating several crops for years, erected separate boundary walls, anderected dwelling house---Both the courts below held that respondents/defendants had provedthere constant possession since last 40 years without interference/objection, whereaspetitioners/plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession---Validity---Petitioners producedmutation entries and ocular evidence who specifically stated that petitioners were owners ofsuit property---Respondents had failed to prove the said entries as collusive/forged---Presumption of truth was attached to the revenue entries in favour of petitioners---Respondents had failed to rebut the said entries---Claim on bases of possession was goodagainst the world except the rightful owner---Claim of respondents merely on the basis ofpossession against the rue owner (petitioners) was unjustified/unwarranted---Nodocumentary evidence was produced to establish cultivation for last 40 years---Held, that thepetitioner was lawful owner of the suit property and was entitled to possession---Revisionpetition was allowed and impugned judgments/decrees were set aside.AIR 2004 SC 4609 and AIR 1990 SC 673 ref.(b) Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------Ss.42 & 52---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 70 & 72---Mutation---Documentaryevidence, preference of---In presence of mutation entries in favour of one party, oral evidence produced by the opponent had no substantial value with regard to the ownership ofthe property in dispute---Mutation entry was a document bearing presumption of correctnessunless rebutted.Hakim Khan v. Nazar Ahmed Lughmani 1992 SCMR 1840 ref.(c) Islamic jurisprudence------Adverse possession---Repugnancy---Possession howsoever adverse was, would not conferany ownership title to the possessee of the property---Claim on the basis of adversepossession was declared against injunctions of Islam.

Summary: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)------Ss. 9, 42, 54 & 55--Suit for possession declaration and mandatory injunction--Inheritance mutation--Recordedowners of property--Presumption of truth--Specific date regarding claim of adverse possession by respondents--Entitlement for possession--Non-producing of evidence by respondents regarding cultivation of suit property--Ocular evidence--Challengeto--Presumption of truth was attached to revenue entry produced by petitioners--This aspect of matter has totallybeen ignored by trial Court as well as an appellate Court and have given weight to ocular evidence produced byrespondents--Trial Court as well as appellate Court has failed to consider evidence on record in its trueperspective--No such documentary evidence was produced to establish that respondents were cultivating saidproperty for last forty years--Respondents have failed to establish that they possess property on basis ofproprietary basis--Respondents were unable, to point out any specific date on which respondents claimedadverse--Possession of property against petitioners--It is held that petitioner is lawful owner of property and he isentitled for its possession, whereas respondents have no lawful right to retain possession of same--Findings oftrial Court, as well as appellate Court in respect of issues are contrary to evidence on record--Revision petitionallowed. [Pp. 25, 26 & 27] A, B, C, D & FOwnership Title------Possession howsoever it adverse is, do not confer any ownership title to possessee of property as a claim on basisof adverse possession has been declared against injunction of Islam by Hon?ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.