1985 PLP 2414 (CLC)
GHULAM MUSTAFA GABOL and another — Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another-Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2414 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Ibadat Yar Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA GABOL and another — Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2414 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (V of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2414 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Ibadat Yar Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2414 (CLC) (GHULAM MUSTAFA GABOL and another — Petitioners Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.A. Brohi for Petitioners.
- S.N. Kizilbash for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Review petition to be decided after hearing petitioner--Rejection of review petition without providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, held, without lawful authority.--[Review--Natural justice, principles of].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--This petition has called into question the order dated 22-7-1975 which the petitioners were askedby respondent No. 2 to remove the encroachment of his shop in Block No. 7 Scheme No. 24 Gulshan-e-Igbal, Karachi and the order dated 3-5-1978 passed by the same respondent rejecting his review application.
2. Mr. S.H. Kizilbash, Advocate for the respondents, opposed this petition.. The only ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner has not been heard before the order dated 3-5-1978 was passed in his review petition and thereby provisions of section 4(2) of Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975 have not been complied with inasmuch as it is a requirement of law that an opportunity to the person who has filed the review petition has to be given and he had to be heard which was not done in this case.
3. Mr.S.H.Kizilbash, Advocate took up the position that the review petition was taken into consideration and that, therefore, it was sufficient compliance of section 4 (2) of the said Act of 1975. We are sorry that we cannot accept such interpretation of the said subsection (2). The subsection (2) clearly requires an opportunity of hearing to the person who has filed the petition and admittedly the petitioner has not been heard. The law does not say that only the review petition will be taken into consideration without hearing the petitioner. Such being the position, we hold that the order passed on 3rd May, 1978 rejecting the review application of the petitioner is without lawful authority and is hereby set aside and the review petition of the petitioner is treated to be pending with respondent No.
2. The same will be decided by the respondent No. 2 after hearing the petitioner. The petition is allowed with costs. H.B.T.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition allowed.