P L D 1958 (W (PLP)
Hafiz GHULAM RASOOL and others‑Petitioners Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1958 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. R. Kayani and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ |
| Parties | Hafiz GHULAM RASOOL and others‑Petitioners Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG and another‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1958 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1958 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. R. Kayani and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1958 (W (PLP) (Hafiz GHULAM RASOOL and others‑Petitioners Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal for Petitioners.
- Yaqub Ali Zaidi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911), S. 173‑Municipal Account Code, 1930, r. XI. 6--Ground rent payable to Committee‑Power to enhance‑Rests in the Committee and not the Executive Officer or Lands Officer‑S. 173 inapplicable,
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.‑--The petitioners who have filed this writ petition, are shopkeepers of Jhang. The respondents are the Municipal Committee, Jhang, and its Executive Officer. More than, three years ago, the petitioners erected some temporary structures on the municipal land with the permission of the Municipal Committee and since then had been paying ground rent at the rate of nine pies per square foot. From the Ist of April 1957, however, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, purporting to act under section 173 of the Municipal Act and rule XI, 6 of the Municipal Account Code 1930, enhanced the rent to three annas per square foot, The petitioners now impugn this order of the Executive Officer on the ground that the power to enhance the rent is only possessed by the Municipal Committee and not the Executive Officer.
2. It is conceded before us by the learned counsel for the respondents that section 173 of the Municipal Act has no application in the present case. The section obviously deals with cases of movable encroachments on any public street. In the present case there is no such question. The Committee is charging ground rent for different plots of land given to the petitioners. It is true that by virtue of section 4 (b) of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, the powers conferred and duties imposed upon the Committee under section 173 and some other sections of the Municipal Act men tioned in Schedule I to the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act are to be exercised by the Executive Officer, but section 173, being itself not applicable, the Executive Officer under this section could not enhance the rent.
3. As regards the applicability of rule XI. 6 of the Municipal Account Code, 1930, all the authority that we find in this rule is that the Lands Officer shall from time to time prepare a schedule showing the plots of land available for temporary occupation by shopkeepers, etc., and the rates at which such plots and portions of the public street may be occupied in accordance with the resolutions or bye‑laws of the committee. No resolution of the Municipal Committee or bye‑law relating to this matter has been shown to us. As for the Lands Officer (who, in this case, is the Executive Officer) he has no power to fix or enhance the rent. His duties, more or less, are of a clerical nature. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Executive Officer is also the Lands Officer is, therefore, of no help to him. The words "from time to time" occurring in rule XI. 6 do not connote, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the Lands Officer has the power to fix or enhance the rent. That power only lies with the Municipal Committee.
4. The result is that we hold the order of the Executive Officer to be illegal and accept the writ petition. A. H. Petition accepted.