1996 PLP 1659 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W..F.P. through Collector, Bannu‑‑‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANNU and 11th others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1659 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Saleem Akhtar and |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W..F.P. through Collector, Bannu‑‑‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANNU and 11th others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1659 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1659 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Saleem Akhtar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1659 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W..F.P. through Collector, Bannu‑‑‑Appellant Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANNU and 11th others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fateh Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Abdul Aziz_ Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 8 to 11.
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1994.
- Abdul Aziz_ Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 8 to 11.
- "Heard. There is conflict in the two reports on 'the question of encroachment. This petifion is converted into appeal. In the meanwhile Haji Abdur Rashid, Advocate, Peshawar, is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the spot, do the measurement and determine the disputed question of encroachment if any.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, dated 14‑3‑1991 in W.P. No.43‑D of 1989). (a) North‑West Frontier Province Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of.1977)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 17‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Question of encroachment on public property‑‑‑Tribunal found no encroachment on public property and declared the notice issued upon respondent to be illegal‑‑ Government's Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court‑-‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted on the ground that there were two conflicting reports on question of encroachment‑‑‑Petition for leave was converted into. appeal‑‑‑Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot. and after taking the measurements determine disputed question of encroachment, if any. (b) North‑West Frontier Province Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of 1977)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 17‑‑‑Question of encroachment‑‑‑Local Commissioner visiting spot and taking measurement relating to alleged encroachment but finding no encroachment‑‑‑No fault could be pointed out with such finding‑‑‑Government had thus, been unnecessarily pursuing a cause which had no substance and had dragged a citizen through two Courts unnecessarily‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to Government was withdrawn and petition for leave to appeal was dismissed‑‑ Government was directed :o pay costs to the respondent.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 14-5-1991 of the Peshawar High Court whereby the Constitution petition of the appellant-Government was -dismissed.
2. Haji Ali Muhammad Khan, respondent No.8, was the lessee for 99 years of land falling in the immediate vicinity of the Dak Bungalow at Pezu in District Bannu. On some report that he had encroached. upon an area measuring 11 'x 192-1/2' attached to the Dak Bungalow, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the N.W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, and he was served with a notice to vacate the area in question. On his part he filed a suit before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The Tribunal was presided over by the District Judge, Bannu. The learned Tribunal had the area of the Dak Bungalow demarcated and found that there had been no encroachment. Accordingly, it declared the notice issued upon him to be invalid and illegal and directed to officials concerned to refrain from acting in pursuance of the same.. The Provincial Government filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order made by the learned Tribunal Division Bench in the High Court dismissed the petition. The Provincial Government has come in appeal by special leave to this Court.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant-Government with the following observations: "Heard. There is conflict in the two reports on 'the question of encroachment. This petifion is converted into appeal. In the meanwhile Haji Abdur Rashid, Advocate, Peshawar, is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the spot, do the measurement and determine the disputed question of encroachment if any. Government to provide him comfortable air-conditioned vehicle to visit the spot and banglow in question shall be provided to him as accommodation during the stay at the spot. A fee of Rs.5,000 plus Rs.1,500 per day if stay is more than one day, shall be paid to him by the Government/petitioner." In pursuance of the above order the Local Commissioner visited the spot and had the land attached to the Dak Bungalow measured. According to his finding there was no encroachment by respondent No.8 on the said land. Mr. Fateh Muhammad, learned counsel for the appellant, has not been able to find any fault with this finding. '
4. It is quite clear that the appellant-Government had been unnecessarily pursuing a cause which has no substance. It has dragged a citizen through two, Courts unnecessarily. Accordingly, we withdraw the leave granted to the appellant-Government and dismiss the petition. The appellant-Government shall pay Rs.10,000 by way of costs to respondent No.
8. A.A./G-488/S Appeal dismissed.