Citation Name: 2023 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAZAL KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAZAL KHAN VS ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Maintainability---Scope---Rule about invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court only after exhausting all other remedies, is a rule of convenience and discretion by which the courts regulate its' proceedings and it is not a rule of law affecting the jurisdiction---Constitutional petition can be entertained against an order passed by a court or authority established under any law, by exceeding its jurisdiction; even if the remedy of appeal/revision against such order is available, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAZAL KHAN VS ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER S. 175---Prevention of encroachment upon common land---Scope---Respondents during pendency of their suit for perpetual and temporary injunction filed application before the Deputy Commissioner for possession of suit land purportedly under S. 175 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---Application was marked by Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar concerned; who allegedly inspected the spot and handed over the disputed property to the respondents vide impugned order---Validity---Perusal of S. 175 revealed that the revenue officer could assume jurisdiction in the circumstances where a particular property was commonly reserved by a proprietary body of a village for the purpose of pasture, graveyard or other similar purpose and in case any person either belonging to the proprietary body or stranger had encroached upon the property, the revenue officer had the jurisdiction to intervene in the matter and recover the possession of the property from the encroacher by restoring it for the purpose for which it was reserved---Section 175 had no application in the matter when there was dispute between two co-owners in respect of the property which had not been reserved for any purpose---Revenue officials had not only acted without jurisdiction but their mala fide and collusion with the private respondents was evident from the record---Impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to restore possession of the property to the petitioners. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAZAL KHAN VS ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER S. 135---application for partition---Scope---When a particular land which is jointly owned by co-owners, the revenue authorities do not maintain record in respect of each holding of co-share in a particular khasra number by metes and bounds. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAZAL KHAN VS ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER S. 9---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 135---Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property---Application for partition---Scope---Where a co-sharer in possession on a portion of joint property is dispossessed by another co-sharer, the remedy for the aggrieved person is either to bring a suit for possession under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or possession through partition before the appropriate forum.

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAZAL KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER art — 2023 PLD 29 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD