2011 PLP 75 (MLD)
ABBAS and 6 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Senior Member, Board of Revenue and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 75 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABBAS and 6 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Senior Member, Board of Revenue and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 75 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 75 (MLD)?
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: 2011 PLP 75 (MLD) (ABBAS and 6 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Senior Member, Board of Revenue and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazar Muhammad Jamali for Petitioners.
- Munir-ur-Rehman for Respondent No.5.
- Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, M.D.A. stating that no Pir Bux Somro Goth exists in said Naclas. It is stated by Munir-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the worthy Governor had constituted a committee on 10-5-2004 to physically verify and examine the existence or otherwise of any village with sanctioned area. He has placed on record a list of legal or otherwise villages existing on the ground. The Committee comprised of (i) Tepedar Songal, (ii) Mukhtiarkar, (iii) Nazim UC-5 Songal, (iv) Executive Engineer, Scheme-45, MDP, (v) D.D.O. (Revenue) Gadap Town and (vi) D.O. (Revenue) C.D.G.K. and such list has been signed by all concerned on 10-5-2004. We have seen the list but the said village does not exist. When the learned counsel for petitioners was confronted, he had no plausible explanation for it and even the Sanads have not been verified. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this petition, which is dismissed along with the listed application.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Right and title in respect of village
Petitioners claimed right and title on the basis. of Sanads in respect of village in question
Counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondent stating that no such village existed
Respondent placed on record a list of legal or otherwise villages existing on the record, but said village did not exist and counsel for the petitioners had no plausible explanation for that and even the Sanad had not been verified
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners claim right and title on the basis of Sanads in respect of village Pir Bux Somro, Naclass No.114, DehTaisar, Gulshan e-Myamar, Gadap Town, Karachi, measuring 12 acres of land. After repeated directions, Meer Muhammad, Mukhtiarkar Gothabad Scheme, Karachi, is present in person today and he was cautioned to respond to the queries of the Court and send timely comments and reply to the notices issued by the Court. He undertakes to mend working of his office and respondent to the queries without any further delay. Explanation is taken on record with warning to be careful otherwise we may recommend action against him to the authority concerned. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, M.D.A. stating that no Pir Bux Somro Goth exists in said Naclas. It is stated by Munir-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the worthy Governor had constituted a committee on 10-5-2004 to physically verify and examine the existence or otherwise of any village with sanctioned area. He has placed on record a list of legal or otherwise villages existing on the ground. The Committee comprised of (i) Tepedar Songal, (ii) Mukhtiarkar, (iii) Nazim UC-5 Songal, (iv) Executive Engineer, Scheme-45, MDP, (v) D.D.O. (Revenue) Gadap Town and (vi) D.O. (Revenue) C.D.G.K. and such list has been signed by all concerned on 10-5-2004. We have seen the list but the said village does not exist. When the learned counsel for petitioners was confronted, he had no plausible explanation for it and even the Sanads have not been verified. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this petition, which is dismissed along with the listed application. H.B.T./A-78/K Petition dismissed.