Summary: PLJ 2015 AJK 39 Present Azhar Saleem Babar J NASEEM AKHTAR 11 others - - Appellants versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary AJK and 14 others - - Respondents CA No 383 of 2008 decided on 25112013 Land Revenue Act 1967 (XVII of 1967) - - - - - - Ss 53 172 (2) (vi) - - Specific Relief Act 1877 - - S 42 - - Jurisdiction of Court in matter of correction of record - - Bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matter of correction of any entry in record of rights periodical record or register of mutation - - Jurisdiction in Civil Court to file declaratory suit if a persons feel aggrieved by entry in record of rights or in a periodical record and permits an aggrieved person to file suit for declaration - - Distinctions - - Validity - - When title of a person is threatened challenged or disputed by another party Civil Court has jurisdiction to lay hands in matter and after declaring title of person Civil Court can direct correction of any entry in a record - of - rights or periodical record - - When there is no threat or challenge to title of a person and matter merely relates to correction of an entry in a record - of - rights or register of mutation it is for revenue officers to rectify such a mistake and make correction in record - - It is within jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide that what remedy appellantsplaintiffs are entitled to [P 44] A B Land Revenue Act 1967 (XVII of 1967) - - - - - - Ss 53 172 (2) (vi) - - Correction of entry in record of rights - - Limitation - - Knowledge of entries - - Suit was filed after more than six years - - Barred by limitation - - Validity - - Entries in revenue record create continuous cause of action so question of limitation does not arise in a suit for declaration challenging entries in revenue record [P 45] C Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877) - - - - - - S 42 - - Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) Ss 53 172 - - Suit for declaration - - Correction of entries in revenue record - - Jurisdiction of revenue officers - - Validity - - If old entries are not brought forwarded in fresh revenue record it is for a revenue officer to make correction in record - - Directive issued by Board of Revenue shall also be read subject to law envisaged by Sections 53 and 172 of Land Revenue Act - - Revenue officers are entitled to make correction in revenue record but when question of title has to be decided Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matter and in such a situation jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred by Section 172 of Land Revenue Act [P 46] D Mr Imtiaz Hussain Raja Advocate for Appellants Mr Saadat Ali Kiyani Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: PLJ 2015 SC (AJK) 350 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Muhammad Azam Khan CJ and Raja Saeed Akram Khan J NOMAN RAZZAQ - - Appellant versus FARYAD HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY and 13 others - - Respondents CA No 136 of 2012 decided on 2142014 (On appeal from the order of the High Court dated 852012 in Writ Petition No 50 of 2011) AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - S 44 - - Constitutional jurisdiction - - In presence of civil suit writ petition was not maintainable - - Alternate remedy - - Suit was filed prior to filing of writ petition before High Court - - Question of - - Maintainability - - Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court can only be invoked when there is no other remedy available - - Respondent had already availed remedy by filing the suit before Court of competent jurisdiction which was pending - - Two remedies cannot be availed simultaneously at different for a after filing the suit with same relief which had been claimed before High Court writ petition was not competent [Pp 357] A B C AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - S 44 - - Constitutional jurisdiction - - Contents of writ petition - - Factual controversy cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction - - In presence of civil suit writ petition was not maintainable - - Validity - - Such controversy cannot be resolved in writ petition without recording evidence which is not job of High Court while exercising powers uS 44 of AJK Act it is well settled that factual controversy cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction [P 357] D 2013 SCR 548 ref AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - S 44 - - Adequate remedy - - Jurisdiction of High Court - - In presence civil suit writ petition was not maintainable - - Extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 44 of AJK Interim Constitution Act cannot be invoked when alternate remedy under law is available to an aggrieved party - - According to law alternate remedy must be adequate efficacious convenient beneficial speedy and effective - - Order in writ petition was without jurisdiction and unlawful there would be no bar on filing a writ petition and Court would not hesitate in entertaining constitutional petition although alternate remedy is available - - High Court must be satisfied that aggrieved person has no other adequate remedy to redress his grievance whereas admittedly respondent had already availed alternate remedy in form of civil suit - - Civil suit regarding same matter is sub - judice before Court of competent jurisdiction and question raised in writ petition involved factual controversy which can be resolved after recording evidence which not job of High Court in writ jurisdiction - - Petition was not maintainable in High Court - - Appeal was accepted [Pp 358 359 360] E F G 2005 YLR 1834 PLD 1995 SC (AJK) 38 2002 SCMR 1632 2007 SCR 263 2013 SCR 548 ref Ch Muhammad Siddique Advocate for Appellant Sheikh Masood Iqbal Advocate for Respondent No 1 Mr Muhammad Younis Tahir Advocate for Respondents No 2 to 10Judgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2015 Peshawar 273 (DB) [Bannu Bench] Present Ikramullah Khan and Muhammad Younis Thaheem JJ Malik KHANZADA KHAN - - Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary State and Frontier Regions Division Islamabad and 10 others - - Respondents WP No 7 - B of 2009 decided on 1132015 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Arts 199 247 - A - - Enhancement of allowance for chief - - Award was granted by Governor to those who either inherent Lungi honour or was awarded to one from whose role society had been benefited to satisfaction of federal Government - - Validity - - So such grant was not a vested right and cannot be claimed as such - - Moreover no question of discrimination on part of Federal Government or its representative head of Province ie Governor be expected to do injustice to any one who deserve it - - Governments either Federal or Provincial are primarily responsible to safeguards fundamental rights of people under law and petitioner has failed to point out discrimination caused to him - - High Court was barred to take cognizance of matter in view of Art 247 - A and directed petitioner to invoke competent forum having jurisdiction - - Petition was dismissed [P 276] A B C Mr Anwarul Haq Advocate for Petitioner Mr Saif - ur - Rehman Khattak Addl AG and Bahlol Khattak Dy Attorney General for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S302,34 PPC,15 AO Delay in charging, further inquiry is not a universal application in each & every case( Bail dismissed)

Summary: S.2(2),4 Evacuee property & displaced persons laws(repeal)Act 1975,S.42,54 SRA:Suit for declaration & injunction--vires in ibid laws--past & closed transaction--jurisdiction of civil court

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 79 & 129, illustration (g)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Agreement, proof of---Withholding of evidence---Plaintiff claimed to have entered into agreement with defendant regarding sale of suit property---Second instalment was payable by plaintiff to defendant within seven days after publication of advertisement inviting objections to sale---Plaintiff never published any public notice in newspaper inviting objections to her intended purchase of suit property, during 90 days period of time and therefore, did not offer to make payment of second instalment in breach of agreement---To the contrary, through a letter, plaintiff proposed that defendant should hand over possession of suit property immediately without further payment---Effect---Intention and conduct were going in directions which could not be termed as anything except an intended breach of terms and conditions of agreement of sale---Requirement of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to prove execution of contract by producing two attesting witnesses had not been done, therefore, reference to Art. 129, illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was misconceived---Plaintiff herself had failed to produce the best evidence without explaining circumstances of her failure---High Court decided issues against plaintiff---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.