1998 PLP 373 (SCMR)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAMAT ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 373 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, Fatal Karim and Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAMAT ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 373 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 373 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, Fatal Karim and Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 373 (SCMR) (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAMAT ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdullah Yousaf Warraich, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab assisted by Abdul Majid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Abdullah Yousaf Warraich, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab assisted by Abdul Majid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 31‑1‑1995 of the Lahore High Court. Lahore passed in Writ Petition No 1106 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 121‑‑‑Respondents being tenants of Zila Council were carrying on business in a market belonging to Zila Council‑‑‑Respondents discontinued paying rent to Zila Council on assurance by Government that ownership rights would be conferred on them ‑‑‑Ejectment proceedings having been initiated against tenants they filed Constitutional petition against petitioners (Government functionaries) seeking orders not to eject them or to demolish their shops‑‑‑One of the officials of petitioners undertook to accommodate respondents and other similarly placed people by giving them alternate land‑‑‑High Court disposed of respondent's Constitutional petition with direction that respondents (petitioners before High Court) would not be disturbed unless suitable piece of land was allotted to them‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioners' plea was that land whereon market had been constructed belonged to Highway Department or to Zila Council; that position of respondents and that of other shopkeepers was that of licensees and they had illegally occupied part of land; and that official concerned in his capacity as Administrator of Municipal Committee had no authority in law to make statement binding the Zila Council or for that matter Highway Department‑‑‑Position taken by petitioners appeared to be correct inasmuch as allotment of land being matter of policy, official concerned could not, by his statement, bind either Zila Council or Highway Department‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and impugned order of High Court was set aside‑‑‑Respondents, however, were not to be disturbed except in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL KARIM, J.
The respondents' case in the writ petition was that they were "carrying on their business in the market which belongs to Zila Council of which respondent No.1 is the Chairman/Administrator"; that "all the shopkeepers including the petitioners are the tenants under the Zila Council. They have not paid the rent for some time now because they were given assurance by the Government from time to time that the ownership rights will be conferred on them"; that they were willing to pay the arrears of rent "in case the Government decides that the ownership rights will not be conferred on them". According to them ejectment proceedings had been initiated by the Zila Council against them and the other shopkeepers without any notice. In short their claim was that they could not be ejected from the shop "except in due course of law and in compliance with an order of ejectment from the rent controller". They, therefore, prayed that the respondents before the High Court namely that Deputy Commissioner, Narowal as Chairman of the Zila Council, Assistant Commissioner. Shakargarh as Administrator, Municipal Committee and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shakaragarh "be directed to desist from ejecting the petitioners etc. from shops of Zila Council, Shakargarh or demolish the shops in question without any notice to the petitioners and without hearing them".
2. By his order dated 30-1-1995, the learned Judge in the High Court directed the office to intimate the respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh) "on telephone at the expense of the petitioners to appear with record of the case before this Court on 31-1-1995". The order of the date 31-1-1995 shows that the Assistant Commissioner appeared before the learned Judge and undertook "to accommodate the petitioners and other similarly placed people by giving them alternate land". The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observation "Let him do so according to law. This being so, the petitioners shall not be disturbed unless a suitable piece of land is allotted to I them".
3. The petitioners namely Deputy Commissioner, Narowal, Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shakargarh seek leave to appeal against the learned Judge's order dated 31-1-1995.
4. It is maintained that the land on which the shops in question stand either belongs to the Zila Council or to the Highways Department; that the position of the respondents and that of the other shopkeepers was that of licensees; they had also illegally occupied part of the land. In any case, so argued the learned counsel, the Assistant Commissioner in his capacity of Administrator, Municipal Committee, Shakargarh had no authority in law to make a statement binding the Zila Council or for that matter the Highways Department. Learned counsel for the respondents agreed that the petitioners' position was that of tenants/licensees under the Zila Council. That being so, learned counsel for the petitioners is right in contending that the Assistant Commissioner in his capacity as Administrator, Municipal Committee, Shakargarh could not have undertaken "to accommodate the petitioners and other similarly placed people by giving them alternate land". It appears that to so accommodate the respondents and the other shopkeepers was a matter of policy and that was not a matter for the Assistant Commissioner in his capacity of Administrator of the Municipal Committee, Shakargarh, when admittedly the land on which the shops stand belongs to the Zila Council or as stated by the petitioners' counsel, to the Highways Department. Nor were in the facts of the case the respondents entitled to the relief that they would not be disturbed "unless a suitable piece of land is allotted to them". It has been seen, that all that the respondents claimed was that they should not be ejected. otherwise than in due course of law; they had not asked for the relief of being given alternate land and that relief could not, therefore, be granted to them.
5. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 31-1-1995 and direct that the respondents shall not be ejected otherwise than in due course of law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A.A./D-3/S Appeal dismissed.