2009 PLP 995 (YLR)
SAIRNA SYED — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 995 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmed Khan and Pir Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SAIRNA SYED — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 995 (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 995 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmed Khan and Pir Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 995 (YLR) (SAIRNA SYED — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Mansoor Meer for Petitioner.
- Zafar Ahmed, C.D.G.K. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Vacation of house owned by City District Government
Petitioner who was widow of an employee of Military Accounts and was holding a house, had claimed that she and other legal heirs of her deceased husband could retain possession of said house for 5 years
Contention of City District Government was that deceased predecessor was not employee of City District Government and that house was given to him only due to some understanding between City District Government and Central Government; and. that City District Government was not applicable to the local body
Petitioner could not retain the house in question while deceased was obtaining pension and retirement benefits from Central Government.
Judgment & Decree
The issue involved in the petition is in respect of vacation of a house. According to the petition her deceased husband was employee of Military Accounts and was holding a house of CDGK. He submits that since the employee has died therefore, the legal heirs including the petitioner has filed this petition for resumption of the house in terms of Central Government laws. He submits that the legal heirs can retain the possession for 5 years or superannuation. He has relied upon notification dated 22-6-2006. On the other hand Mr. Zafar Ahmed submits that the deceased predecessor was not employed by CDGK and the house was given only to him due to some understanding between CDGK and Central Government and the Central Government law is not applicable to the local body. He submits that for the last one year the house was in possession of the petitioner and six months time was also granted by the City Nazim to the petitioner on humanitarian ground. We have heard both the Counsel and found no force in the arguments of the petitioner to retain the house or his entitlement to retain the house of CDGK while admittedly the deceased is obtaining pension and retirement benefits from Central Government, therefore, this petition is dismissed but with the direction that the vacation action should be taken after three months. H.B.T. /S-18/K Petition dismissed.