2005 PLP 2166 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD IJAZ — Petitioner Versus AHMAD SHUJJA PASHA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2166 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Jjaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IJAZ — Petitioner Versus AHMAD SHUJJA PASHA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2166 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 2166 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Jjaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2166 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IJAZ — Petitioner Versus AHMAD SHUJJA PASHA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Shamim, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 along with Lt. Col. Iqbal Hashmi, AJAG.
- Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate-General for Respondent No.3.
- 4. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General submits that land in question was utilized by respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, respondent No.3 is not responsible to pay any amount to the petitioner; therefore, writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
S.31
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had alleged that Authorities had not paid amount of compensation to him while same was paid to other land owners where land was also acquired
Receipts attached by the Authorities with report and parawise comments showed that amount of compensation had been paid to the petitioner, but he had concealed said material fact from the High Court
Disputed questions of facts were involved in the case and High Court had no jurisdiction to resolve such questions in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa and others 1983 SCMR 196; Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others 1969 SCMR 141 and Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and others 1993 SCMR 618 ref. Petitioner in present in person.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the compensation as assessed by the Revenue Authorities in the report sent to them (respondents) to the petitioner in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that compensation as stated above may very kindly be directed to be paid provisionally to the petitioner."
2. The petitioner submits that respondents have not paid the compensation to the petitioner, which is paid by the respondents to the other owners of the land in the area; therefore, action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution.
3. The learned standing counsel submits that respondents have paid the compensation to the petitioner as is depicted from the receipts attached by the respondents with report and parawise comments. He further submits that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the contents of the Constitutional petition. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed questions of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General submits that land in question was utilized by respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, respondent No.3 is not responsible to pay any amount to the petitioner; therefore, writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No.3.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court. In case the contents of the writ petition and parawise comments of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be put in a juxta position then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of disputed question of facts and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction. I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of the concealment of the material facts and also this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa and others 1983 SCMR 196, Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others 1969 SCMR 141 and Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and others 1993 SCMR
618. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1071/L Petition dismissed.