Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Public functionaries--- ----Powers and obligations---Doctrine of resulting trust---Scope---Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity---Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined---Validity---Admittedly 10 kanals of land was transferred in favour of the Respondent / Department specifically for the establishment of BHU for the benefit of local vicinity but the Government's decision to abandon such project after the lapse of more than nineteen years amounts to failure of the basic condition upon which the land was transferred---The "doctrine of resulting trust" is attracted in such situations, where the land should revert to the original owners to prevent unjust enrichment by the State---The Government has taken no steps for the implementation of the proposed project and the subject land remains unutilized as is evident from fresh report sought by High Court---It is evident that land was admittedly transferred to the Respondent / Department for specific purpose that was not fulfilled till date---When property is transferred to the Government for a specific purpose and that purpose is not fulfilled, the transaction stands frustrated and the Government cannot retain such property for indefinite or alternative use without the consent of the donors---It is not permissible for the Government to retain the land as the underlying intention of the transfer no longer subsists and said aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the Single Judge, while passing the impugned order---High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent ) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs---Intra-Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 4---Public functionaries---Powers and obligations---Equality of citizens---Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity---Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined---Validity---Record reveals that Government decided to abandon project after the lapse of more than nineteen years---It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution---Hence, it is the duty and obligation of every public functionary, including the Respondents / Department, to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution---High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Talib Shahzad for Appellants. Malik Amjad Ali, Additional Advocate General Punjab with Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th June, 2025.

Summary: The petitioner had challenged the appointment of Computer Operators in the District Judiciary Upper Chitral. Imran Ullah claimed he was discriminated against during the interview process for the post. The petitioner argued that he was declared failed in the interview without reason despite securing 60 marks out of 75 in the written test. The court held that it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the interview panel`s assessment, as the marks awarded during the interview are based on subjective criteria. Courts cannot interfere with the interview panel`s subjective assessment. The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merits.

Summary: (a) Where the lower fora make an error of law in deciding a matter, it becomes a jurisdictional issue, since such fora are only vested with the jurisdiction to decide a matter correctly. Therefore, such a decision can be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction as being in excess of lawful authority, in terms of Article 4 of the Constitution. It thus becomes a case proper for interference by a High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The powers of the High Court under Article 199 state that, ordinarily, the High Court does not re-examine evidence or disturb findings of fact. However, it can interfere if the findings are based on non-reading or misreading of evidence, erroneous assumptions, misapplication of law, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, or arbitrary exercise of powers—especially when the District Court, acting as the final appellate court, reverses the findings of the trial court on unsupported grounds. The scope of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution in such cases is limited to instances of misreading or non-reading of evidence, or where the finding is based on no evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court should not disturb findings of fact through reappraisal of evidence in constitutional jurisdiction or use this jurisdiction as a substitute for revision or appeal. Interference with the lower court`s findings of fact is beyond the scope of the High Court`s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. (b) The object of exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution) is to foster justice, preserve rights, and rectify wrongs. The appraisal of evidence is primarily the function of the Trial Court, and in such cases, the Family Court, which has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction. In constitutional jurisdiction, where findings are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, and where the order of the lower fora is found to be arbitrary, perverse, or in violation of law or evidence, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction as a corrective measure. If the error is glaring and patent to the extent of being unacceptable, the High Court can interfere—such as where the finding is based on insufficient evidence, misreading or non- consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumptions of fact, patent errors of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power, or an unreasonable view of the evidence. The legislature intended to place a full stop to family litigation once it is decided by the appellate court. However, it is regrettably observed that High Courts routinely exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as a substitute for appeal or revision. More often, the purpose of the statute—i.e., expeditious disposal of cases—is compromised and defeated. No doubt, there may be certain cases where intervention is justified, but a significant number fall outside this exception.Therefore, it is high time that the High Courts prioritize the disposal of family cases by constituting special family benches for this purpose. Thus, the legal position remains that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for revision or appeal, and the High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, cannot reappraise the evidence and decide the case on its facts. Interference is limited, an exception rather than the rule.