Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

PAINDA MUHAMMAD versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIR


Arts 199 and 185 (3) Deer and Swat (Property Distribution and Distribution) Regulation, 1972, Para 3 Review Waiver Jurisdiction Limitation Applicants' Chairman, Request for Review Against Tribunal Land Disputes Order, by the Chairman Rejected due to time and high restrictions. The court refused to interfere with the writ jurisdiction, saying that there was no good scope by the petitioner that the order of the chairman to reject the revision application on the boundaries of the law was bad, upholding the High Court order Gone, there is no question of amusement or interest in requesting a time-bound review or staying within the chairman's sole discretion late and saying that it was used illegally, publicly or in a profane way. Is not free to review in the accompanying writ jurisdiction.

1986 S C M R 130

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ

PAINDA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners

versus,

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIR and others‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition No. 101‑P of 1985, decided on 6th October, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 10‑3‑1985 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No. 353 of 1982).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑‑Dir and Swat (Devolution and Distribution of Property) Regulation, 1972, para. 3‑‑Reivew‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑ Limitation‑‑Petitioner's review petition against order of Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, dismissed by Chairman as barred by time and High Court declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction on view that no good ground was shown by petitioner that order of Chairman dismissing review petition on ground of limitation was bad in law‑‑Order of High Court maintained‑‑Held, question of entertaining or not entertaining a time‑barred review petition by condoning or not condoning delay lay entirely within discretion of Chairman and said discretion not having been shown to have been exercised illegally, capriciously or perversely was not open to review in writ jurisdiction.

Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court and Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th October, 1985.

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑

The petitioners, who belong to the Utmankhel tribe, feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dir, dated 29th September, 1972 under paragraph 3 of the Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir & Swat) Regulation 1972, challenged the same in appeal. The said appeal, however, was dismissed by Mr. Sher Afzal Khan, Officer on Special Duty, Government of N.‑W.F.P., Home & Tribal Affairs Department vide order, dated 9th October, 1973. The last‑mentioned order was challenged in revision but this effort also failed and the aforesaid revision petition was dismissed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad vide order, dated 1‑6‑1976.

Although this should have been the end of the matter the petitioners made another effort, after the promulgation of President Order 13 of 1980 for getting the orders passed against them set aside by moving the Chairman Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral through review petition No. 353 of 1982. This petition was dismissed by the Chairman (Mr. Justice (Retd) Qaiser Khan) on 8‑4‑1982 as barred by time. His order was challenged before the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition but a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same vide order, dated 10‑3‑1985 on the view that no good ground was shown why the order of the Chairman (Mr. Justice (Retd) Qaisar Khan) dismissing the review petition on the ground of limitation was bad in law. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

We entirely agree with the High Court that no ground existed for interfering with the order of Mr. Justice (Retd) Qaiser Khan in writ jurisdiction. The question of entertaining or not entertaining a time‑barred review petition by condoning or not condoning the delay lay entirely within the discretion of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir‑Swat & Chitral. The said discretion not having been shown to have been exercised illegally, capriciously or perversely was not open to review in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was, accordingly, rightly dismissed and, therefore, no ground exists for interference by this Court.

This petition is dismissed.

M . Y . H . Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
tax advocates from Hayatabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.