1995 PLP 957 (SCMR)
CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 957 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 957 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 957 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 957 (SCMR) (CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1995.
- 3. We have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner and Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Itntiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5‑6‑1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Civil Revision No. 132/D of 1987). Settlement Scheme No. I‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Paras. 6 & 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of property in question to respondent through Permanent Transfer Deed‑‑ Property being Cinema, Cantonment Board started collecting car parking fee outside such property‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Respondent's suit for permanent injunction against Cantonment Board for collection of car parking fee was dismissed and his appeal met the same fate‑‑‑High Court in revision, however, decreed plaintiff's suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Permanent Transfer Deed issued by Settlement Authorities showed that only evacuee rights and interest in respect of building were transferred to respondent, and there was no mention of compound of such building‑‑‑Trial Court and Appellate Court had dismissed suit of respondent while High Court had, decreed his suit‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to re‑appraise evidence so as to determine whether compound of cinema alongwith building in question was, transferred to respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.‑‑‑Vide permanent transfer deed dated 23‑9‑1964, Cirose Cinema, Rawalpindi, was transferred to M/s Muhammad Din and Company. The General Land Register maintained by the Military Estate Office shows that it was transferred to respondent Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad by way of family agreement (inheritance) under the provisions of Muhammadan Law, vide agreement dated 20‑7‑1965. The Cantonment Board started collecting car parking fee outside the Cinema. Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad, therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, claiming that the petitioner had no right to collect parking fee from the cars parked on the respondent's owned land. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. On pleadings of the parties following two issues were framed:‑‑ (i) Whether the property in dispute forms part of the Ciros Cinema? OPP. (ii) Relief.
2. The parties led evidence in support of their claims. On 17‑11‑1981 the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed the suit. The respondent filed appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who also maintained the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. The respondent; therefore, filed revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, who was pleased to accept the revision petition and decreed the suit of the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the above said order of the High Court before this Court.
3. We have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner and Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Itntiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the respondent.
4. The P.T.D. issued by the Settlement Authorities in favour of the respondent shows that only the evacuee rights and interest in respect of the building were transferred to the respondent. There is no mention regarding the compound (land) of the building. The learned Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent, whereas the High Court decreed his suit. Whether the compound of the cinema alongwith the building was transferred to the respondent, needs reappraisal of the evidence. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly. AA.C‑152/SC Leave granted.