2008 PLP 891 (CLC)
ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 891 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 891 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 891 (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 891 (CLC) (ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Younus for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmed for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had contended that despite his payment of amount demanded as development charges and land rent, no transfer of land had been effected in his favour-Validity-Public duties were required to be performed without unreasonable delay and authorities should convey their reason/decision to the petitioner for such delay
Authority was directed that in case the matter had not been decided so far, same should be decided after hearing the petitioner within stipulated period.
Judgment & Decree
Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Legal Advisor, City District Government, is present and waives notice. Petitioner has claimed that though he had paid the amount demanded as development charges and land rent pursuant to the letter from the respondents dated 7-8-1972, no transfer of land has been effected in his favour. Without going into the merits, we would observe that public duties are required to be performed without unreasonable delay and the respondents should convey their reason/decision to the petitioner. Accordingly, we would dispose of this petition by directing respondent No.1 that in case the matter has not been decided earlier, the same will be decided, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from today and the order passed will be communicated to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of-in the above terms. H.B.T./A-23/K Order accordingly.