1991 PLP 1876 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others — Petitioners Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its D.G — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1876 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others — Petitioners Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its D.G — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1876 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1876 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1876 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others — Petitioners Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its D.G — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16th March, 1985 in I.CA. No.53 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)
Petitioners had agreed to pay price to be fixed by respondent Authority in respect of shops allotted to them in lieu of their old shops located on the site of new construction
In fixing price of shops there being no breach of any law or vested right, case considered not fit for interference
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th March, 1985 whereby I.CA. of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were running shops in the Old Vegetable Market, Digkot Road, Faisalabad. The respondent Faisalabad Development Authority directed the petitioners to vacate the site as it formulated a scheme to develop the area. The petitioners represented to the authority that they be provided shops in the same area after its development. The respondent agreed. Thereafter, one shop each was allotted to the petitioners. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the price had been arbitrarily fixed and that therefore the fixation of the price was not justified by law. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been accepted at any stage. The respondent did not accept it and as a result the petitioners challenged the fixation of the price of the shops allotted to them in the High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed in limine. Thereafter, their I.CA. had also been dismissed. Hence the present petition. We have heard learned counsel and in the light of his submission seen the record. The petitioners had agreed to pay the price to be fixed by the respondent. There is no breach of any law or vested right in this case. It is therefore not a fit case for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1038/S Petition dismissed.