2015 PLP 404 (GBLR)
MUHAMMAD TAQI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 404 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAQI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 404 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 404 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 404 (GBLR) (MUHAMMAD TAQI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioner.
- Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
- Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondents Nos.2 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 14
Acquisition and returned of land to the owner
Suit filed by the plaintiff having been decreed by the Trial Court, defendant filed appeal before Appellate Court below which was dismissed
Revision against concurrent findings before Chief Court was also dismissed
Procedure adopted for the unutilized land and its return to the plaintiff, had properly been followed
Courts below had rightly come to the concurrent conclusion in their findings and no infirmity was found in findings of the courts below
Defendant had no locus standi to contest the matter
Defendant had gone into a wild goose chase for an issue which was no concern of his
No substance was found for interference as there was no irregularity in the matter
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, J.
Initially the plaintiff/respondent Muhammad Ali Khan filed a Civil Suit for declaration and consequential relief to the effect that 2 marlas of land under Khasra No. 678, be returned to him by defendants Nos. 2 and
5. Secondly that the utilized 2 marlas of the acquired land was being encroached upon by Muhammad Taqi petitioner/defendant and his eviction. During the pendency of civil suit the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was restored with the 2 marlas of acquired piece of land by the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 after fulfilling the legal formalities required. In the conclusion the suit was decreed as prayed for. The petitioner/defendant Muhammad Taqi preferred appeal against order of the Civil Judge on 21/5/2010, who vide its finding dated 08/4/2011, dismissed the same as being meritless. Again a revision petition was preferred against the concurrent findings of the two lower courts in the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, who vide its findings dated 18/8/2013, dismissed the same as being without any substance. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan as being devoid of any merit along with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. At the outset counsel for the petitioner pleads that the return of the 2 marlas of utilized land to respondent No. 1 by the respondents Nos.2 and 5 is illegal and the same could not be done so. The petitioner is agitated by the letter No. RC-2(1)/2004-1, dated 19/5/2005, by the section officer law. It is pleaded that said Section Officer Law had no locus standi to order the return of the same. In the light of the argument advanced, we have gone through the letter in question along with the exhibits placed on file along with rule 14 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983. We are convinced that the procedure adopted for the unutilized land and its return have properly been followed and the courts have rightly come to the correct conclusion in their findings. There is no infirmity found. The petitioner/defendant Muhammad Taqi has got no locus standi to contest the matter as he is nobody to prefer a civil suit. He has gone into a wild goose chase for an issue which is no concern of his. The letter No. RC-2(1)/2004-1, dated 19/5/2005 by the section officer law is also closely perused and we found no substance for interference as it does not suffer from any irregularity. In the light of above observations petition is converted into appeal and dismissed. HBT/212/GB Appeal dismissed.