Summary: The Appellant/Petitioner had been a resident/tenant of a property within the DHA for more than 24 years and sought permission to be buried in the DHA graveyard. However, their request was denied by the DHA.The central issues in this case revolve around whether land owned by an authority or society for specific purposes can be declared as waqf (an endowment for religious or charitable purposes) or public property, and whether the DHA has the authority to regulate and manage its own land allocated for specific purposes in its master plan.The Appellant/Petitioner argues that the restrictions imposed by the DHA are unreasonable and against their fundamental rights, as well as Shariah (Islamic law). They contend that once land is allocated and used as a graveyard, it becomes consecrated as waqf property and is for the benefit of humanity, and no one, including tenants, should be denied burial rights.On the other hand, the Respondent Authority asserts that the DHA graveyard is its private property, and only registered members and their immediate family can be buried there. They argue that the DHA has the right to regulate its land usage and protect the interests of its members.The court examined the statutory powers of the DHA and its regulations, which provide the DHA with the authority to manage and control the specified area. It found that the DHA has the right to make rules and policies for the proper development and management of the area, including the burial facilities.The court also discussed the concept of waqf and determined that even if the graveyard is considered waqf, it is intended for the benefit of DHA members and their families, and there is no provision to allow public burials.The judgment ultimately upheld the DHA's right to regulate the use of its graveyard and denied the Appellant/Petitioner's request for burial rights in the DHA graveyard. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Summary: The case involves the arrest of the petitioner based on Crime No. 44/16 registered by the Police Station CTD, Multan. The complaint alleged that the petitioner and four others were spotted near the Railway Bridge on the river Sutlaj, carrying handbags suspected of containing explosive substances and arms. They were charged under Anti-Terrorism Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Arms Ordinance. The petitioner's defense argued that he was abducted from his house in Lahore by individuals dressed in black uniforms, as stated in an application filed by his brother. Despite complaints to authorities and the submission of evidence, no investigation was conducted into the alleged abduction. The investigating officer failed to inquire into this aspect of the case. The court acknowledged the serious nature of terrorist activities in the country but emphasized the importance of ensuring justice and due process for individuals accused of such crimes. It criticized the one-sided investigation and highlighted the duty of police officers to uncover the truth, especially when accusations of false implication are made. Considering the shortcomings in the investigation and the petitioner's entitlement to bail as a matter of right, the court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Summary: The case involved Awal Khan and others as the petitioners and The State through AG-KPK and another as the respondents. After hearing the arguments on 12.1.2017, the Supreme Court, represented by Mr. Justice Mushir Alam and Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, issued an order. The court admitted the petitioners to bail in case F.I.R. No.437 dated 6.8.2016, PS District Lukki. However, the bail was subject to the condition of furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 249-A – Acquittal at Pre-Trial Stage – Scope – Misappropriation of Government Property – Concurrent Findings of Acquittal – Interference by Higher Courts – The petitioner, Civil Supply Officer Astore, registered FIR No. 59/2008 under Sections 406/409 PPC against the respondent for alleged misappropriation of 541 bags of wheat, causing a loss of Rs. 4,32,800/- to the government exchequer. After investigation, the challan was submitted, and the respondent was charged. Out of nine prosecution witnesses (PWs), only five were examined. The respondent filed an application under Section 249-A Cr.PC before the Trial Court, which accepted the application and acquitted the respondent on 31.03.2015. The petitioner challenged the acquittal through Criminal Revision Petition No. 01/2016 before the District Judge, Astore, which was dismissed on 10.05.2016. Further, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 146/2017 before the Chief Court was also dismissed on 28.09.2017. The petitioner contended that the respondent’s deposit of the misappropriated amount directly implicated him in the offense and requested remand for the examination of remaining witnesses. Held: The Supreme Appellate Court observed that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The findings were upheld, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the appointment of a Junior Clerk (B-7) through a writ petition filed on September 18, 2013, contesting the validity of two appointments made on September 13, 2013. The appellant argued that he was second on the merit list and should have been appointed when a position became available. The petition also challenged the legitimacy of the Selection Committee's recommendations and sought cancellation of the appointments of Muhammad Adil and Ghulam Murtaza, made against the vacant posts. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading the appellant to file this appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Were the appointments of Muhammad Adil and Ghulam Murtaza valid under the rules governing the Selection Committee and recruitment process? -----2- Was the Selection Committee properly constituted and its recommendations lawful? -----3- Can appointments be sustained if the underlying process was flawed and the posts were not properly advertised? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and quashed the appointments of Muhammad Adil and Ghulam Murtaza, reasoning as follows: --Improper Constitution of the Selection Committee: The Selection Committee that conducted the recruitment process was not formed according to the government notification dated April 21, 2010. It was also not duly notified, rendering the entire selection process invalid. --Cancellation of the Committee's Recommendations: The Chief Engineer, who chaired the relevant Selection Committee, had already declared the committee's recommendations invalid and ordered the post to be re-advertised on September 16, 2013. --Failure to Advertise the Vacant Post: The Court emphasized that, under Rule 17 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, all appointments must be made following proper advertisement. Since the second post, against which Muhammad Adil was appointed, was not advertised, his appointment was also invalid. --Mandatory Nature of Public Advertisement: Citing previous case law, the Court reiterated that any appointment made without advertising the post violates the mandatory requirements of the law and cannot be sustained, regardless of whether it was formally challenged. --Invalid Appointments: Both Muhammad Adil’s and Ghulam Murtaza’s appointments were found to be void due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Even though Adil's appointment was not directly challenged, the underlying flaws in the process rendered both appointments unsustainable. The Supreme Court quashed the appointments of both Muhammad Adil and Ghulam Murtaza, directing the relevant authority to immediately advertise the vacant posts and make appointments in accordance with the law. This decision reaffirmed the importance of adhering to procedural rules in public appointments and ensuring transparency through proper advertisement. -----Citations / Precedents: Rashid Hussain vs. Gul Afsar Khan & 3 others (1999 SCR 435) Held that appointments made without advertising posts violate Rule 17 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Rules, rendering such appointments illegal. Muhammad Ayub vs. Chief Conservator of Forests and 4 others (2002 SCR 537) Confirmed that no appointment can be made without public advertisement, and all candidates must be allowed to compete fairly.

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute over the ownership and mutation of certain land in Kotli District. The respondents filed a declaratory suit seeking the cancellation of mutation No. 229 and correction of the revenue records, alleging that the mutation was improperly recorded. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, while another related suit was dismissed under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. On appeal, the District Judge set aside the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, prompting the appellant to file this appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. -----Issues 1- Was the respondents' suit barred by limitation, or does a continuous cause of action apply? -----2- Did the trial court err by framing unnecessary issues, complicating the proceedings? -----3- Did the first appellate court correctly remand the case for reconsideration? -----4- Should the disputed mutation No. 229, executed in favor of one owner, affect the rights of other co-owners? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and directing the trial court to re-adjudicate the matter. The key reasoning is as follows: --Limitation and Continuous Cause of Action: The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the appellate court pointed out inconsistencies in the trial court's findings. On the one hand, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondents on the limitation issue, but on the other hand, it dismissed the case on the same ground. Since the respondents alleged that the mutation was kept secret and they filed the suit upon discovering it, the issue of limitation required deeper analysis. Furthermore, because the respondents were continuously recorded as co-owners in the revenue record, this constituted a continuous cause of action. --Unnecessary Issues Framed by the Trial Court: The appellate court correctly identified that the trial court framed redundant issues, as many factual matters were admitted by both parties. The Supreme Court confirmed that Issues 1 and 2 were unnecessary and should be deleted. --Validity of Mutation and Co-ownership Rights: A key issue was whether the abandonment of tenancy rights by one Shair, an occupancy tenant, could result in the disputed mutation being recorded in favor of just one co-owner. The Supreme Court emphasized that this question required proper adjudication to determine whether the mutation should have been recorded for all co-owners or just one. Therefore, Issue 3 was correctly framed and needed to be resolved by the trial court. --Remand as the Appropriate Remedy: Given the conflicting findings on the limitation issue and the unresolved controversy regarding the effect of the mutation on co-ownership, the Supreme Court agreed that remanding the case for a fresh decision was the proper course of action. The trial court was directed to complete the re-adjudication within four months from the communication of the Supreme Court’s order. The appeal was dismissed. The case was remanded to the trial court with specific directions to address the remaining issues, particularly the validity of the mutation and whether it affected the rights of other co-owners. The trial court was instructed to resolve the matter within four months, ensuring a fair resolution of the ownership dispute. No costs were awarded. -----Citations / Precedents: Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code: Prevents the splitting of claims and mandates that all reliefs arising from the same cause of action must be claimed together. Continuous Cause of Action: In cases involving ongoing ownership disputes, a cause of action may arise repeatedly as long as the alleged wrongful entries remain in the record.

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute over the right of prior purchase (pre-emption) related to a piece of land measuring 1 kanal, part of survey No. 754, in Kotli District. The appellant obtained a consent decree for the land from the Senior Civil Judge, Kotli, on June 12, 2001. The respondent, challenged this decree, claiming that it was obtained to defeat his right of pre-emption. The Additional District Judge decreed the case in favor of the respondent, and the appellant’s subsequent appeal in the High Court was dismissed. This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to contest that judgment. -----Issues: 1- Was the plaintiff-respondent’s suit for pre-emption maintainable under the law? -----2- Did the respondent waive his right of pre-emption through the language of the original gift deed? -----3- Is the respondent a co-sharer in the disputed property, entitling him to pre-emptive rights under the Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 B.K.? -----4- Does the land’s contiguity to the disputed property establish the respondent’s right of pre-emption? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, ruling as follows: --Waiver of Pre-emption Right: The appellant argued that the respondent waived his right of pre-emption through the language used in a prior gift deed. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the gift deed merely indicated the permanent nature of the gift but did not expressly waive the respondent’s right of pre-emption. --Co-sharer Status and Pre-emption Right: The appellant contended that the respondent was not a co-sharer in the disputed property and, thus, lacked the right to pre-empt. The Court held that the respondent’s status as a co-sharer was both admitted in pleadings and confirmed through evidence. The appellant’s attorney, during trial, also admitted that the respondent had a right to pre-emption. --Contiguity as a Basis for Pre-emption: Even if the respondent were not a co-sharer, his right of pre-emption would still be valid under Section 15 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 B.K. The Court highlighted that the respondent’s land was contiguous to the disputed property, satisfying the requirements of the Act. This admission by the appellant further reinforced the respondent’s right to pre-empt the sale. --Concurrent Findings of Fact: The Court emphasized that the findings of the lower courts were consistent and based on proper evaluation of the evidence. As no misreading or non-reading of evidence was identified, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the respondent had a valid right of pre-emption as both a co-sharer and a contiguous landowner. The Court held that the appellant’s arguments lacked merit, and no costs were awarded. ------Citations / Precedents: Khadim Hussain v. Muhammad Afzal & others (2015 SCR 792) Established that arguments not consistent with pleadings or evidence cannot be treated as valid.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending