2009 PLP 1834 (YLR)
HABIB-UR-REHMAN and 7 others — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT (K.B.C.A., WING), KARACHI through Chief Controller and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1834 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan and Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB-UR-REHMAN and 7 others — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT (K.B.C.A., WING), KARACHI through Chief Controller and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1834 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1834 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmad Khan and Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1834 (YLR) (HABIB-UR-REHMAN and 7 others — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT (K.B.C.A., WING), KARACHI through Chief Controller and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Claim of the petitioner was that he had purchased 13-37 acres land from two Survey Nos. and had got a lay out scheme approved---Counsel appearing for respondents had submitted that a total 13-26 acres of land was sold while one of the respondents got an approved lay out plan on 14-22 acres---Petitioner had further submitted that certain illegal constructions had been raised by respondents on several plots---Validity---Petition of the petitioner could not be entertained by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction as factual issues were involved in the case---Petition was dismissed.
- Raja Sikandar Khan Yasir for Petitioner No.1.
- Kausar Ali for Petitioner No.1.
- Shaikh Munir-ur-Rehman for Respondent No.3.
- Neel Keshav for Respondents Nos.4 to 6.
- Mr. Neel Keshav, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 4 to 6 submits that a total 13-26 acres of land was sold while the respondent No.3 got an approved layout plan on 14-22 acres. It has also been contended that certain land has been excessively occupied while certain amenities have not been provided or withheld. The petitioners have further submitted that certain illegal constructions have been raised by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on several Plots bearing Nos. L-1, L-2, L-3 and R-1 to R-4 with different measurements while according to Mr. Neel Keshav, this construction has been raised by the respondent No.3 and he has sold out the plots.
- Mr. Shaikh Munir-ur-Rehmani, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that there are K.B.C.A comments according to which construction has been raised on the pipelines etc.
Headnotes / Summary
Ms. Afsheen Aman for the K.B.C.A. Miran Muhammad Shah, A.A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioners are claiming land from respondent No.3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has purchased 6-16 acres of land from survey No.227 and 7-21 acres of land from Survey No.228 total admeasuring 13-37 acres of land and has got a layout scheme approved. Mr. Neel Keshav, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 4 to 6 submits that a total 13-26 acres of land was sold while the respondent No.3 got an approved layout plan on 14-22 acres. It has also been contended that certain land has been excessively occupied while certain amenities have not been provided or withheld. The petitioners have further submitted that certain illegal constructions have been raised by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on several Plots bearing Nos. L-1, L-2, L-3 and R-1 to R-4 with different measurements while according to Mr. Neel Keshav, this construction has been raised by the respondent No.3 and he has sold out the plots. Mr. Shaikh Munir-ur-Rehmani, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that there are K.B.C.A comments according to which construction has been raised on the pipelines etc. In the light of above, we are of the humble view that instant petition cannot be entertained by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction on factual issues, which can only be settled and decided, after the evidence of the parties is recorded. This petition in such circumstances does not merit consideration which is accordingly dismissed together with the listed application. H.B.T./H-30/K Petition dismissed.