Source: https://joshandmakinternational.com/our-reported-judgements/2012-scmr-664-province-of-punjab-through-collector-sargodha-versus-muhammad-bakhsh-supreme-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:04:38+00:00

Document:
Civil Appeal No.1383 of 2006, decided on 23rd February, 2012.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10-5-2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.120 of 2006).
—-Court or Tribunal making an error of law in its decision would go outside of its jurisdiction—Principles.
The very condition for the conferment of a jurisdiction on a court of law is that it should decide every lis before it fairly, justly and in accordance with law. Where a court or a Tribunal makes an error of law on which the decision of the case depends, it goes outside its jurisdiction.
Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Ahmad and 2 others 2008 SCMR 521; Province of the Punjab through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others 2007 SCMR 554; Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Ghani and 3 others 2000 SCMR 1083; Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission; Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447; Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCMR 338; Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 24 and Assistant Collector v. Al-Razak Synthetic (Pvt.) Ltd. 1988 SCMR 2514 rel.
Mudasar Khalid Abbasi, A.A.-G. Punjab, Maqbool Ahmed, Secretary Colonies and Abdul Rauf, General Assistant, Revenue Sargodha for Appellant.
Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court, Nazir Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2012.
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.—This appeal with the leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment dated 10-5-2006 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the learned Judge of the Court in his Chambers dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant and maintained the judgment and decree granted by the learned Courts below.
“The case of the respondent was that he was an allottee of the suit land and was in cultivating possession of the same since 1973-74. He applied for conferment of proprietary rights in the suit land on the basis of the Notification No.3215-79/3973-C II dated 3-9-1979 wherein the policy of the government has been setout for conferring proprietary rights in respect of State land. The defence setup by the petitioner Province was that under para 2(iv)(b) of the aforesaid notification, the suit land fell within the belt in respect of which proprietary rights could not be conferred”.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that where in view of section 4 of the Colonization of Government Land (Pb.) Act, 1912, jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted, it could not entertain, hear and adjudicate upon a dispute emerging out of an order passed under the Act. The learned A.A.-G. to support his contention placed reliance on the cases of “Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Ahmad and 2 others (2008 SCMR 521), Province of the Punjab through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others (2007 SCMR 554) and Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Ghani and 3 others (2000 SCMR 1083)”. The civil Court, the learned A.A.-G. added, has jurisdiction to step in where the order passed is void or without jurisdiction which is not the case here, therefore, its finding being coram non judice cannot stand. The learned A.A.G by referring to a latest map indicating the position of the suit land contended that when it falls within the radius of 5 miles, the decision taken by the fora functioning in the relevant hierarchy cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction and lawful authority so as to vest jurisdiction in the Civil Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the crow line drawn on the map Exh-D.7 to indicate the position of the suit land, would show that it ends where the boundaries of the suit land begin. If this aspect, he added, is considered then the suit land falls outside the radius of five miles, therefore, the decision given by the fora functioning in the hierarchy of the Act appears to be void as they declined grant of proprietary rights to the respondents on the grounds which are whimsical by every attribute.
5. We have gone through the entire record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
(iv) lands lying within a belt of.
7. To prove that the suit land, falls within the radius of five miles of the outer side of the outer limit of the Municipal Committee a crow line was drawn in the map which is Exh.D-7 on the record. A look at the map would reveal that the crow line indicating the radius of 5 miles ends where the boundaries of the suit land begin. When so the contention of the learned A.A.-G. does not appear to be correct. The other argument as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court also falls with the fall of the argument stressing that the suit land lies within the radius of 5 miles. A decision given by the fora functioning in the hierarchy, therefore, cannot be said to have been given within the parameters of law and jurisdiction. For the very condition for the conferment of a jurisdiction on a Court of law is that it should decide every lis before it fairly, justly and in accordance with law. Where a Court or a Tribunal makes an error of law on which the decision of the case depends, it goes outside its jurisdiction.
13. A decision given on wrong premises and erroneous assumptions was rightly set aside by the learned trial and appellate courts. The impugned judgment of the High Court maintaining such decisions being unexceptionable is not open to any interference.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal being without merit is dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.