2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
QADIR KHAN MANDOKHAIL WELFARE TRUST Versus CHAIRMAN, K.P.T. and 5 others
| Citation | 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ |
| Parties | QADIR KHAN MANDOKHAIL WELFARE TRUST Versus CHAIRMAN, K.P.T. and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mushir Alam and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (QADIR KHAN MANDOKHAIL WELFARE TRUST Versus CHAIRMAN, K.P.T. and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Islam Hussain for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sarfraz Sulehry for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Scope
Claim of petitioner was with regard to claim of lease of plot
Discretionary jurisdiction of High Court could not be exercised in the matter which required resolution of a factual controversy and dispute
Petitioner could approach concerned authorities for its remedy. Zafar Ahmad for C.D.G.K.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHIR ALAM, J.
Petitioner claims the leasing out of the property to them. It is claimed that other persons have been accorded lease in respect of the area in their possession. When the learned counsel was confronted whether land claimed by the petitioner falls within the declared and notified Katchi Abadi, it was stated that none is in his knowledge. Mr. Sulehry learned counsel for K.P.T. contends that some of the persons have encroached the K.P.T. land and case has been forwarded to the concerned quarters for removal of such encroachment. The petitioner being encroacher is not entitled for any indulgence in exercise of writ jurisdiction. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner or any of its members are in occupation of any land for 40 years as claimed by the petitioner.
2. Under circumstances, we are not deemed appropriate to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in this matter which requires resolution of a factual controversy and dispute as to the existence or otherwise of any Katchi Abadi if so advised, petitioner may approach the concerned authorities for any remedy as may be available to them. H.B.T./Q-19/K Petition dismissed.