1992 PLP 1575 (CLC)
NOOK MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER anothers‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1575 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | NOOK MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER anothers‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1575 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1575 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1575 (CLC) (NOOK MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER anothers‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jamshed Ali for Petitioners.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan Addl.A.‑G. for Respondent No.l.
- Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 156 & 157‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Disputed question of fact‑‑‑Scope of exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Construction of shops and children park on land in question, by respondent Authority‑‑‑Petitioners, claiming land in question, to be owned by them and objecting to such construction‑‑‑Petitioners apparently through a collusive suit had divided land in question, in equal shares‑‑‑Petitioners in their suit, claimed land in question on basis of Shamilat, but in Constitutional petition they described said property as evacuee property, thus, taking a somersault and an inconsistent stance‑‑‑Petitioners' possession had been categorically denied by respondent Authority‑‑‑Matter relating to possession being a disputed question of fact, Court declined interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Jamshed Ali for Petitioners. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan Addl.A.‑G. for Respondent No.l. Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Respondent No.2. Petitioners through this Constitutional petition have assailed Notification, dated 4th of February, 1989 whereby respondent No.l Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, in exercise of his powers under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, read with West Pakistan Union Council Shamlat Rules, 1983 allowed the construction of shops and children part on Khasra No.1794 to the Town Committee, Alipur Chattha.
2. The facts briefly, according to the writ petition, are that the petitioner No.l moved an application under Scheme‑VIII and Scheme‑IX for the transfer of evacuee plot measuring 10 Kanals comprising Khasra No.1794 in his possession. On the other side Riaz Hussain (deceased) predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos.2 to .7 filed a civil suit at Wazirabad against petitioner No.l claiming the disputed land as Shamlat on the ground of being owner in the revenue estate. It is the case of the petitioners that a compromise was effected on 26‑7‑1983 between the petitioner No.l on the one side and Riaz Hussain, predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 7 on the other side and accordingly the disputed plot was divided in equal shares between them.
3. Grievance has been made that the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, through the impugned Notification dated 4‑2‑1989 has illegally transferred the management and maintenance of the disputed land to the respondent No.2, Town Committee, Alipur, for the construction of shops and children park. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the limine stage and have perused the comments submitted by respondent No.2. petitioners through a collusive suit divided the Petitioner No.l's stance is also not consistent He filed a civil suit claiming the disputed land on the basis of shamilat. In the writ petition a somersault has been taken and the property in dispute has been described as an evacuee property .The possession of the petitioner has categorically been denied by respondent No. resultantly the matter being dispute question of fact I am not inclined to persuade to interfere in my constitutional jurisdiction and dismiss this writ petition in limine. A.A./N-506/L Petition dismissed.