Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Pendency of civil litigation---Alternate remedy, availability of---Effect---Petitioner sought order restraining therespondents from dispossessing her from the disputed property---Validity---Petitioner hadalready filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the civil court and therewas hardly any plausible basis or explanation to seek indulgence in the extraordinaryjurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution---Interference inconstitutional jurisdiction could not be solicited in the presence of an adequate alternateremedy---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Farzand Rana Naqvi and 5 others v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others2004 SCMR 400 and Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others v. Ahmed Ali and another2007 SCMR 38 ref.Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority throughDirector General, LDA and 5 others PLD 2001 SC 393 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Pendency of civil litigation---Effect---Where the aggrieved party has already initiated civil litigation, the invocation ofconstitutional jurisdiction will not be justified.Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority throughDirector General, LDA and 5 others PLD 2001 SC 393 rel.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Educational Institution---Admission---Merit list---Admission to medical college---Petitioner was aggrieved of merit list prepared foradmissions to medical colleges---Validity---Selection process was finalized and academicsession had started---Petitioner was not vigilant and she could not be permitted to takebenefit of her own lapses nor selected candidates could be deprived of their legitimateadmissions---Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution was meant forcorrecting jurisdictional errors in orders and proceedings of tribunals and executiveauthorities---No illegality or error in the process of selection of candidates by authoritieswarranting interference by High Court was noticed---Constitutional petition was dismissed,in circumstances.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 6 ----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 - Article 42(10) ---Land Acquisition Act - Section 30 ----Legal Issues: --Compensation for Land Acquisition and Alternate Remedy - The respondents sought an income loss award and compensation related to the Neelum Jhelum Hydro Electric Project. Although compensation was initially awarded and subsequent claims by one of the respondents were rejected by the Collector, the respondent appealed through a writ petition, which the High Court accepted. --Efficacy of Alternate Legal Remedy and Writ Jurisdiction - The court found that the proper course for disputing compensation would have been through a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 44 was improperly invoked, as the issue involved factual questions outside the purview of writ jurisdiction. Collector’s Award and Judicial Oversight - The Supreme Court noted that Award No. 4/2010, which rejected further compensation claims, had not been adequately considered by the High Court. --Ruling: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, ruling that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition when an alternate remedy was available. The Collector’s award was deemed binding, and the procedural approach to challenge it via writ jurisdiction was held improper. --Judgment Result: Appeal accepted. -----Background: This case involves a dispute over compensation related to land acquired for the Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The land was originally acquired in 2007, and compensation was paid to the landowner. Subsequently, a block factory operator who had rented the land received compensation for income loss through Award No. 4/2010. Another claimant, however, also sought compensation, alleging the establishment of a block factory and a crush plant on the same land. After the collector initially rejected this claim, the claimant appealed to higher authorities and eventually filed a writ petition, which was accepted by the High Court, directing the issuance of an income loss award. This appeal challenges that decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for income loss, despite the initial rejection by the collector. -----2- Whether a writ petition was a valid remedy given the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. -----3- Whether the High Court erred by intervening in a factual matter typically outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the writ petition was not appropriate, as an alternate remedy was available. The High Court's directive to issue an award and provide compensation was overturned. The court reasoned that: After a thorough inquiry, the collector had already decided on the claims and issued Award No. 4/2010, which included the rejection of the claimant’s application. No new application could be entertained following this award, as it had already addressed the claims related to the disputed land. The claimant's proper recourse was to file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act rather than approaching the High Court, as factual disputes are outside the typical writ jurisdiction. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition. -----Citations/Precedents: Aurangzeb Through L.Rs. and others vs. Muhammad Jafar (2007 SCMR 236) Bashir Ahmed vs. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Regular First Appeal, original jurisdiction IHC (objection case 7777-12 numbered as RFA. 43-12)

Summary: Article 199 Constitutional of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Section 10 of Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912 and principle of policy. Ordinarily the court of constituional jurisdiction avoids to interfere in the Policy matter of the Government.

Summary: Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules 1963-------R.4(10)(a)---Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Ss.372 & 384---Succession of pension---Entitlement---Widow of deceased civil servant sought her succession to pension which wasallowed by Trial Court but claim of son was denied---Validity---Widow was dependent onher deceased husband who was a government servant and she was entitled for pensionamount---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as there was noillegality or irregularity committed by the Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.Federal Government v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731 rel