Citation Name: 2023 CLC 663 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. HUSSAN ARA (WIDOW) vs Mst

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 663 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. HUSSAN ARA (WIDOW) VS Mst. SURAYYA BEGUM DECEASED art.199---Constitutional petition---Concurrent findings of facts by Courts below---Scope---High Court while exercising jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution ordinarily and normally does not interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below or lower fora---If allegation of lack of jurisdiction or mala fide or patent illegality is attributed to the tribunal or authority passing order in question, the same can be set aside in exercise of provisions conferred under art.199 of the Constitution, by issuing a writ of certiorari. Citation Name: 2023 CLC 663 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. HUSSAN ARA (WIDOW) VS Mst. SURAYYA BEGUM DECEASED Ss.53 & 172---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss.39, 42 & 54---Registered document, cancellation of---Fraud and misrepresentation---Revenue authorities, jurisdiction of---Petitioners were aggrieved of cancellation of registered general power of attorney and mutation of transfer of land by revenue authorities on the plea of fraud and misrepresentation---Validity---Cancellation of general power of attorney and mutation on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation could only be challenged before competent Court of civil jurisdiction by invoking provisions of Ss. 39 & 42 of Specific Relief act, 1877, through a suit for declaration for cancellation of instrument declaring the same to be void or voidable---Registered document could not be cancelled without intervention of a civil Court of competent jurisdiction---Revenue officer or revenue Court could not examine authenticity of a registered instrument in exercise of powers, conferred under the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue act, 1967, in view of the provisions contained in S.39 of Specific Relief act, 1877---Revenue Official exceeded his power by declaring registered general power of attorney and mutation in question as executed by practicing fraud and misrepresentation---Scope of S.172 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue act, 1967 was entirely different, it only excluded jurisdiction of civil Court for taking in hand functions assigned to revenue officers or revenue Courts under S.172 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue act, 1967, including correction of any entry in record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations---High court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside orders passed by revenue authorities and question to the genuineness, authenticity and legality of general power of attorney and mutation in question was to be determined by competent civil Court---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 663 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. HUSSAN ARA (WIDOW) vs Mst — 2023 CLC 663 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC