Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Case Dissmissed

    Uploaded by

    hashmiibnulhasan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Dissmissed

    Uploaded by

    hashmiibnulhasan
    3 views2 pages

    Original Title

    CASE DISSMISSED

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3 views2 pages

    Case Dissmissed

    Uploaded by

    hashmiibnulhasan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    ORDER SHEET

    THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

    CP No.D-5096 of 2021
    Date Order with signature of Judge(s)

    1. For orders on CMA No.21009/2021.


    2. For orders on office objection No.10.
    3. For orders on CMA No.21010/2021.
    4. For orders on CMA No.21011/2021.
    5. For hearing of main case.

    25.08.2021

    Mr. Muhammad Arshad S. Pathan, advocate for the petitioner.


    **********

    1. Urgency granted.

    2. Deferred.

    3. Granted; subject to all just legal exceptions.

    4&5. Petitioner, being an association, has assailed the notification


    dated 30.06.2021 issued by the Board of Revenue, Government of
    Sindh (“Impugned Notification”), reproduced herein below:

    “No.CIS/SW/BOR/539/2021:- In exercise of the powers conferred by section


    27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 in supersession of this Department’s
    th
    Notifications No.CIS/SW/BOR/2019-584 dated the 28 June, 2019,
    th
    No.CIS/SW/BOR/2019-596 dated the 28 June, 2019, and No.CIS/R&T-
    th
    38/BOR/2021-178 dated the 10 February, 2021, the Chief Inspector of
    Stamps, Board of Revenue, Sindh, with the approval of the Government of
    th
    Sindh (Cabinet) conveyed in its meeting held on 15 June, 2021, is pleased
    to adopt the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) valuation tables of Karachi,
    st
    Hyderabad and Sukkur, with effect from 1 July, 2021.”

    At the very onset, learned counsel for the petitioner was


    confronted as to the maintainability of this petition, inter alia, as to
    the locus standi of the association1 to maintain this petition; the law
    to which the Impugned Notification was allegedly repugnant; and
    whether exercise of writ jurisdiction was merited in this ostensibly
    policy matter. Learned counsel remained unable to satisfy this court
    on the questions raised with respect to maintainability.

    Learned counsel was also queried as to the whereabouts of


    the valuation table under challenge and in response it was submitted
    that the same is not with the petitioner and may be sought by this
    court itself from the respondents and evaluated whether it was
    consonant with the prevailing relative land values.

    The exercise of powers, per Article 199 of the Constitution,


    was required to be undertaken upon application of an aggrieved
    person2. The petitioner has made no submission before us to

    1
    2001 YLR 916; PLD 1964 (WP) Lahore138.
    2
    Barring certain exceptions, i.e. writ of quo warranto, however, no case was made out to
    qualify the present petition within an exception recognized by law; 2019 SCMR 1952.
    suggest that it falls within the definition of an aggrieved person3. No
    law has been cited before us in relation to the Impugned Notification,
    hence, it follows that no repugnancy of any sort has been identified.

    It is also apparent that the valuation table/s impugned /


    assailed have not been placed on record. Seeking of such record
    from the respondents by the court itself is unmerited and in any
    event the writ jurisdiction of this court is not amenable to enter into a
    factual controversy to ascertain the nexus of notified land values with
    market values.4

    In view of the reasoning and rationale herein contained, we


    are of the considered view that the petitioner has been unable to set
    forth a case for the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction by this
    Court, hence, this petition, along with pending application, is hereby
    dismissed in limine.

    JUDGE

    JUDGE

    Khuhro/PA

    3
    Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs. The State reported as PLD 2020 Supreme Court 282;
    SECP vs. East West Insurance Company reported as 2019 SCMR 532.
    4
    2016 CLC 1; 2015 PLC 45; 2015 CLD 257; 2011 SCMR 1990; 2001 SCMR 574; PLD
    2001 Supreme Court 415.

    You might also like