1989 PLP 3949 (MLD)
Syed ALI MAZHAR Petitioner Versus KDA. and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3949 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Tanzil-ur-Rehman, JJ. |
| Parties | Syed ALI MAZHAR Petitioner Versus KDA. and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3949 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3949 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Tanzil-ur-Rehman, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3949 (MLD) (Syed ALI MAZHAR Petitioner Versus KDA. and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Anwar Hussain for Petitioner.
- S.M. Abbas for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199--Petitioner impugning notice issued to him by authority for his ejectment from plot of land No. 522--Petitioner contending that he was owner of Plots No. 713 and 595--Society stated that it had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed in favour of petitioner in respect of plot No. 713--Petition involving disputed questions of fact--H&W: Authority should get plot in dispute surveyed by Mukhtiarkar of Deh concerned and if it was found that petitioner was in possession of Plot No. 522 or a portion thereof, it would be entitled to act upon notice in accordance with law, but in case it was found that petitioner was not in possession of Plot No. 522 or any portion thereof then notice impugned in petition would be withdrawn.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Abbas for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984. AJMAL MIAN, J.--The petitioner has impugned the notice issued by respondent No.1 for ejectment. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land in survey numbers 713 and 595 Deh Thano Malir, Karachi. Mirza Yaqoob Baig learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that factually respondent No.1 has issued notice in respect of Survey Number 522 and not in respect of Survey Number 713, whereas Mr. S.M. Abbas learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that respondent No.2 Society has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Survey Number 713. 2. In our view, the present petition involves disputed questions of fact. It will suffice to observe that respondent No. 1 shall get the plot m dispute surveyed by the Mukhtiarkar of the Deh concerned and if it is found that the petitioner is in possession of Survey No.522 or a portion there of the respondent No.1 shall be entitled to act upon the notice in accordance with law, but in case it is found that the petitioner is not in possession of Survey No. 522 or any portion thereof, the notice shall be withdrawn. The petition stands disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./A-620/K Order accordingly.