2010 PLP 385 (YLR)
ASAD ALI AWAN — Plaintiff Versus Mian MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL through LRs. and others — Defendants
| Citation | 2010 PLP 385 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmad, J |
| Parties | ASAD ALI AWAN — Plaintiff Versus Mian MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL through LRs. and others — Defendants |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 385 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 385 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 385 (YLR) (ASAD ALI AWAN — Plaintiff Versus Mian MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL through LRs. and others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.8, 12 & 42
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.24
Suit for specific performance, declaration, possession and damages
Area of one acre was leased out to the defendant for 30 years, out of which 10 ghuntas was for the poultry farming purpose, while 30 ghuntas was for wahi chahi
Report was submitted by the Mukhtiarkar to the D.D.O. R & R, informing him that the allottee had violated the terms of the lease, inasmuch as instead of using it for poultry farming and wahi chahi, commercial construction had been raised on the land by the lessee--Lease was liable to cancellation under S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
Mukhtiarkar had stated that no action had been taken by the D.D.O. R & R
D.P.O. was directed to appear in the court and inform as to what action had been taken pursuant to the report of Mukhtiarkar
Merely pendency of present suit, would not be considered as an obstruction for taking action by the Board of Revenue. Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Afaq Younus for Plaintiff. Qazi Majid Ali, A.A.-G. along with Mukhtiarkar Keamari Town for Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMAD, J.
It seems that an area of one acre from NC-1 in Deh Moach was leased for 30 years to the defendant No.2 out of which 10 ghuntas was for poultry farming purpose while 30 ghuntas for wahi chahi. This land was transferred vide order dated 24-4-2002- of District Officer Revenue, CDGK in favour of defendant No.1 (20 ghuntas), defendant No.2 (6 ghuntas), defendant No.4 (7 ghuntas) and defendant No.5 (7 ghuntas). On 13-7-2002 a report was submitted by the Mukhtiarkar to the D.D.O. R&R, Keamari Town, Karachi informing that the allottee has violated the terms of the lease inasmuch as instead of using it for poultry farming and wahi chahi, commercial construction has been raised on the land by the lessee and it was noted that the lease is liable to cancellation under section 24 of the Colonization Act, 1912. The Mukhtiarkar who is in attendance states that no action has been taken by the DDO R&R, Keamari Town, Karachi and that if orders are passed, he will take appropriate action for resuming the government land. Let D.D.C. R&R, Keamari Town appear in court on the next date and inform as to the action which has been taken pursuance to the Mukhtiarkar's report dated 13-7-2002. It may be observed that merely pendency of this suit will not be considered as an obstruction for taking action by the Board of Revenue. It will however, be without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. Adjourned to 19-12-2008 when Mukhtiarkar is also directed to be present in court. H.B.T./A-148/K Order accordingly.