Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Regular Second Appeal No.622 of 1975, decided on 12th April, 1987.
---S.9--Thal Development Act (XV of 1949), S.74-A [as added by Thai Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIX of 1975)]--Jurisdiction of civil Court--Retrospective effect of statute on existing rights--Civil Court ordinarily having jurisdiction to decide all matters of civil nature in respect of right to property or to an office, held, had jurisdiction to go into question whether act of Collector in cancelling allotment was taken under Act or not--Provisions of newly- added S.74-A in Act (XV of 1949), not specifically providing that it would apply to existing rights, pending actions or decided cases, retrospectivity as provided in that section, would not apply to cases already decided by civil Court haring jurisdiction in matter.
Barkat Ali v. Administrator Thal Development P L D, 1978 Lah. 867 ref.
Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Appellant.
Sh. Abdul Majid for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 12th April, 1987.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are that the appellants filed a suit against the respondent authority challenging the order resuming the land on the ground that interest at the rate of 9% on the instalments could at best be recovered and the levy of interest at the rate of 13 % was illegal and unauthorised. After framing issues and recording evidence of the parties the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 26-4-1975 in the following terms:-
"As a result of my findings above the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and the same is decreed to this extent only that the order of resumption by the defendant No.l is illegal and void. The remaining instalments shall be paid on behalf of Sardar Muhammad and others and the department is quite competent to proceed against the transferees for the violation of the terms and conditions. No order is made in respect of the costs of the suit."
Administrator Thai Development Authority challenged the aforesaid decree by filing an appeal before the learned District Judge Mianwali. This appeal was accepted holding that jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands barred with retrospective effect by the provisions of the Amending Ordinance XIX of 1975. This led to the filing of the present second appeal by the appellant. The view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands barred by the aforesaid Ordinance has not been upheld by the High Court. The first judgment in the series was delivered in Barkat Ali v. Administrator Thal Development P L D 1978 Lah. 867. I have also held in Muhammad Sharif v. Thal Development through Administrator Thal Development Bhakkar and another (R.S.A. No.779 of 1975) that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to go into the question whether the act of the Collector in cancelling the allotment was taken under the Act or not. It will, therefore, be seen that I have thus agreed with the view expressed by the learned Judge of this Court in the case of Barkat Ali. For the reasons given in R.S.A. No.779 of 1975 the judgment and decree, dated 31-7-1975 is, therefore, set aside. As the learned District Judge has not decided the appeal on merits the same is hereby remanded to the learned District Judge Bhakkar for fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
H. B. T./F-19/L Appeal accepted/Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer