Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Appreciation of evidence...Benefit of doubt.

Summary: The creation and variation of the limits of districts was not governed by the Constitution but by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967. No bar existed in the Constitution which prevented the limits of districts, whether in relation to a Provincially Administered Tribal Areas or not, from being changed without a constitutional amendment. Variation in the limits of a district did not affect the PATA status of an area, therefore, the tribal areas of one district would remain tribal areas even after they became a part of another district in PATA----It outlines the historical background of the district reconstitution in 1976, followed by subsequent notifications modifying administrative divisions. Various legal provisions, including the West Pakistan District Re-constitution Ordinance, 1960, and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, are discussed. Several legal arguments are presented, including whether the government's actions were ultra vires, adverse to public interest, based on mala fide intentions, or in violation of constitutional mandates regarding tribal areas (PATA). The court's analysis highlights the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to tribal areas, district reconstitution, and the applicability of laws to tribal areas. The court's decision emphasizes that district boundaries can be changed administratively, unlike provincial boundaries, which require constitutional amendments. It rules that laws applicable to tribal areas in Swat District also apply to tribal areas incorporated into Kohistan District based on prior extensions of laws and regulations. The judgment references the case of The Collector Customs vs. Abdul Jabbar (PLD 2005 SC 247) to support the argument that laws applicable to tribal areas in Swat District would also apply to tribal areas incorporated into Kohistan District. Furthermore, the court's decision draws on the case Superintendent, Land Customs, Torkham (Khyber Agency) to establish that the extension of laws to tribal areas in Kohistan is consistent with legal precedents and administrative practices.

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute over ownership and possession rights regarding Shamilat Deh land, located in a village of Kotli, Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The plaintiffs (appellants) claimed to be in possession of the disputed land for a long time, challenging the revenue records where they were recorded as illegal possessors (Ghair Mauroos). They sought correction of the record and a declaration of ownership, alleging their right to share in the Shamilat Deh land. However, the trial court dismissed the suit, and subsequent appeals in the District Court and High Court also failed. This civil appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by leave, seeking relief from the prior judgments. -----Issues: 1- Do the appellants, originally occupancy tenants, have any claim to ownership of the Shamilat Deh land after the enactment of the Land Reforms Act, 1960? -----2- Can long-term possession or occupancy give rise to ownership rights in Shamilat Deh land under applicable laws? -----3- Should the concurrent findings of the lower courts be overturned? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgments of the High Court and lower courts. The key reasoning is: --Occupancy Tenants and Land Reforms: Although the appellants became owners of land they previously occupied after the Land Reforms Act, 1960, they had no legal entitlement to Shamilat Deh land, which remains the joint property of the original owners. --Illegal Possession (Ghair Mauroos): The appellants' possession of the disputed land was illegal, as established by the records from 1961-62 and 2003-04, and such possession does not grant them ownership rights. --Concurrent Findings of Fact: The courts consistently found that the appellants were not entitled to ownership of the disputed land. There was no misreading or non-reading of the record, and these findings were upheld. --Ownership in Shamilat Deh: Only those who were original owners before the enactment of the Land Reforms Act can claim rights to Shamilat Deh land. The appellants, as new owners, cannot claim shares in this land based on mere possession. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, maintaining that the appellants had no legal basis to claim ownership in the disputed Shamilat Deh land. -----Citations / Precedents: Muhammad Bashir and 6 others vs. Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and 27 others (2013 SCR 185) Held that every village inhabitant is a proportional owner of Shamilat Deh land. No decree for adverse possession can be granted without determining ownership. Raja Asmatullah Khan vs. Qudratullah and another (2014 SCR 1535) Declared that ownership based on agreements among private persons is not valid for Shamilat land. Muhammad Rasheed and 7 others vs. Muhammad Mushtaq Khan and 5 others (2016 SCR 505) Established that ownership of Shamilat land requires partition and a specific certificate from the Collector; agreements alone cannot grant title. Khushi Muhammad vs. Fateh Dad (Civil Appeal No. 20/1972) Affirmed that new owners under the Land Reforms Act cannot claim shares in Shamilat land, which remains the property of the original proprietors. Azad Government vs. Raja Waleed Khan and others (1993 SCR 307) Upheld that sections of the Land Reforms Act were contrary to Islamic injunctions. Maj. (Rtd) Muhammad Ayub Khan vs. Azad Government (Shariat Petition No. 2/1989)

Summary: Bail granted-----Background: This case involved a criminal revision petition filed by two officials of the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA) who were accused of various offences, including fraud, forgery, and bribery, under the Pakistan Penal Code (sections 34, 161, 162, 467, and 468) and the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 (sections 10 and 11). The appellants were arrested following a complaint and denied bail by both the Ehtesab Court and the High Court. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking bail. -----Issues: 1- Did the High Court err in denying the appellants bail, given the lack of evidence against them? -----2- Does the principle of consistency entitle the appellants to the same bail relief as the co-accused? -----3- Should the appellants be kept in custody despite weak evidence and bailable offences? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, granting bail to the appellants, with detailed reasoning: --Lack of Evidence: The Court found that the prosecution had not collected any concrete evidence against the appellants. The only evidence—a compact disc (CD)—was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which could not verify it due to a lack of necessary equipment. --Principle of Consistency: The co-accused, facing similar allegations, had already been granted bail. The Court ruled that the principle of consistency applied, entitling the appellants to the same relief. --Malafide Intent and Weak Investigation: The investigation by the Ehtesab Bureau appeared flawed and intended to harass the appellants. No witnesses came forward to support the allegations, and the Bureau failed to gather any substantial evidence. --Rule of Bail: The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and denial is the exception, especially when the offences are bailable and there is no solid evidence. It also noted that detaining the appellants for an indefinite period amounted to conviction without trial, which is against legal principles. --Application of the Ehtesab Bureau Act: The applicability of sections 10 and 11 of the Act would be determined during trial, and in the absence of strong evidence, the appellants could not be kept in custody indefinitely. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and granted bail to the appellants. The appellants were ordered to furnish personal bonds of one million rupees and two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of a judicial magistrate. -----Citations / Precedents: Muhammad Ajmal v. Muhammad Naeem and 3 others (2001 SCR 164) Held that similarly placed co-accused must be treated consistently in bail matters. Akhtar Hussain & another vs. The State & another (2010 SCR 455) Established that where the allegations are similar and other co-accused have been granted bail, the remaining accused are entitled to the same treatment.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Section 4 of KPK Tenancy Act could not be extended to lands owned by Government. No right of occupency could be claimed in virtue of section 3 of the KPK Tenancy Act, thereafter, the promulgation of the Tenancy Act, 1950.