2006 PLP 1212 (YLR)
ALLAH YAR and 14 others — Appellants Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE and
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1212 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR and 14 others — Appellants Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE and |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1212 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1212 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1212 (YLR) (ALLAH YAR and 14 others — Appellants Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Seerat Hussain Naqvi for Appellants.
- Saeed Ashraf Warraich for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance (IV of 1979), S.11
Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss.52 & 53
Watt' property
Notification of taking over administrative control and management-Petition against notification along with an application for interim injunction
Contention was that appellants were in possession of suit-land since generations and all three ingredients for grant of injunction were in favour of appellants therefore refusal of injunction was not in the interest of justice
Notification was issued by the competent Authority on 31-12-2002 and respondents had taken possession of the land in question on 17-1-2003
Since the possession had already been taken from the appellant, impugned order was valid and in accordance with settled law
Appeal having no merit, the same was dismissed by Nigh Court. Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan PLD 1970 SC 139 ref.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.
Learned counsel of the appellant submits that appellant has filed petition before the District Judge, Toba Tek Singh under section 11 of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 along with an application for interim injunction which was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 16-12-2003. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that in the interest of justice and (airplay the appellant would be allowed to remain in possession of the property in question till decision of the petition filed by the appellant. He further submits that all the ingredients are in favour of the appellant but the District Judge concerned did not consider all these principles which are laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan PLD 1970 SC
139. He further submits that appellant is in possession of the land since generations and the same is not part of the shrine of Baba Haider Shah Bokhari.
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that Notification was issued by the competent authority on 31-12-2002 and the respondents have taken possession of the land in question on 17-1-2003. He further submits that appellant is trespasser over the land in question and the learned District Judge has passed the order keeping in view the principle laid down by the superior Courts. Therefore, impugned order is valid in the eye of law.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the view point of the respondents that the respondents have taken the possession from the appellant on 17-1-2003 which is duly mentioned in "Roznamcha Waqiati" alter one month of the Notification issued by the competent authority under section 7 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979 on 26-12-2002. Since the possession has already been taken from the appellant, therefore, impugned order is valid which is not in derogation of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan PLD 1970 SC
139. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice and fair play the District Judge concerned is directed to decide the petition of the appellant as early as possible. F.M./A-76/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.