2008 PLP 673 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD JAMSHED — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Coordination Officer, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 673 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMSHED — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Coordination Officer, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 673 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 673 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 673 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD JAMSHED — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Coordination Officer, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhry Abdul Rashid for Petitioner.
- Syed Jamil Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Hafeez-ur-Rehman Kardar for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(c) & 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Encroachment upon public property
Petitioner had impugned the action of authorities as regards issuance of notice under Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975
Petitioner had stated that lease having been executed in his favour, Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975 was not applicable
Inquiry into the question of encroachment on public property was held according to which petitioner had encroached upon the public property; that alleged execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner, was illegal and without jurisdiction
Record showed that the Sindh Katchi Abadi Authority had no jurisdiction to execute lease in respect of an area not falling within its territorial jurisdiction
Claim of the petitioner as raised in the petition, thus, could not be entertained
Petitioner could seek any remedy as could be available including the right of appeal provided under Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has impugned the action of the respondents as regards issuance of notice, dated 5-4-2000 under Removal of Encroachment Act, 1975. It is stated by the learned counsel that the lease has been executed in his favour therefore it is not .applicable. It seems that in order to resolve this dispute this Court on 16-1-2004 directed appropriate inquiry into the question of encroachment of public property and the conclusion to be conveyed to this Court. It appears that inquiry into the question of encroachment of public property was held on 5-5-2000 in the office of District Officer (P&UD) Master Plan Group of Offices, C.D.G.K. Mr. S. Muhammad Shah, Additional D.O. (MPGO), C.D.G.K., Mr. Riaz-ul-Nabi Zia, A.E.(T), Karachi, Field Officer, Sindh Katchi Abadi Authority and Mr. Mahmood Bloch, Additional D.O. (W&S), C.D.G.K. participated in the inquiry as to the area within possession of the petitioner. The conclusion of the inquiry is as follows:-- "(IV) The petitioner encroached the public property as the land control is within C.D.G.K., K.D.A. Wing. (V) Execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner is illegal and without the jurisdiction of S.K.A.A. In this view of the matter, it has come on record that the Sindh Katchi Abadi Authority had no jurisdiction to execute lease in respect of an area not falling within their territorial jurisdiction therefore we are not intended to entertain the claim of the petitioner as raised in the instant petition. Petitioner may seek any remedy as may be available and including the right of appeal provided under the Act, 1975. Petition is accordingly dismissed along with all pending applications. H.B.T./M-11/K Petition dismissed.